1986 FOPA Hughes Amendment Vote (machine gun ban) footage located

[Ajax22]

***edit*****

The footage has arived



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ


I don't usually post in this forum, but there is an ongoing project that I'd like to share.

Essentially, there may be video/audio evidence that the 86 machine gun ban (Hughes amendment) was never actually passed, but simply recorded as having been passed.

The congressional record indicates that the recorded vote (taken before the vote which 'passed' it) was defeated 298 to 124with 12 not voting

Here is a PDF of the relevant section of April 10th

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4x...ut=list&num=50

Here is a TXT file of the relevant section of April 10th

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4x...NjU0ODcw&hl=en

Here is a PDF of the full section of April 10th

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4x...ut=list&num=50

There are no available video archives of the 1986 house vote, as the C-span tapes were all destroyed, and I haven't been able to find a copy of any aired footage in any of the available video archives or footage companies.

However, the Library of congress DOES have a copy

using the time data from the congressional record it is clear that the tapes we need is:

Contents: 09:57-11:29 (VTA 0236)
11:26-13:00 (VTA 0237)
http://lccn.loc.gov/91796859

Yesterday the price quote showed up, and we raised the 391.25 necessary to get the footage transfered to DVD and shipped out. (special thanks to the guys at Thehighroad.org, ar15.com and calguns.net who ponied up the cash to make it happen)

So... stay tuned... we may have Charlie Rangel on video falsifying the congressional record, and thereby eliminating the creation of transferable machine guns.


From what we've seen of the congressional record, It looks like despite popular ledgend the stuff that went down on the evening of april 9th was procedural and not the BIG screwup, April 10th seems to be when everything went sideways...



Parts to note:


Hughes introduces his Machine gun banning amendment and attempts to have it NOT read, which is sneaky, since he's the only one who knows its in there (as illustrated by the little surprised comments from Volkmer).

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUGHES TO THE
AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MR.
VOLKMER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE JUDICI-
ARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE
OF A SUBSTITUTE, AS AMENDED
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment of-
fered as a substitute for the committee
amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman,
before the amendment is read, I would
like to know if the amendment was
one of those printed in the RECORD
prior to today.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so
inquire of the gentleman from New
Jersey whether his amendment has
been printed in the RECoRD?
Mr. HUGHES. It has been printed in
the RECoaR, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has
it been printed in the RECORD by Mr.
HUOHES?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, it
is not required that the sponsor of the
amendment have it printed in the
REcoRD.
The Clerk will report the amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:

[SNIP- Just the text of the machine gun ban]

Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
RECORD.

Hughes tries to avoid having it read the first time... remember, no one was expecting this, it wasn't up for a vote the night before, hughes had it entered in sometime between when the april 9th session ended and the early april 10th session began.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request
that the amendment be considered as
read and printed in the RECORD. I ask
my colleagues, in all fairness and ra-
tionality-we only have 3 minutes
left-to give me an opportunity to ex-
plain why machineguns should be
banned.

With 3 minutes left, Huges tries a SECOND time to avoid having the bill read

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, regu-
lar order and reserving the right to
object-
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for
a waiver of the reading of the amend-
ment.

Hughes tries a THIRD time to avoid having his amendment read

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for


)NGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE


a waiver of the reading of the amend-
ment, I do not know why anyone
would object to the banning of ma-
chineguns.

Hughes tries a FOURTH time to avoid having his amendment read (remember, he's interrupting it being read each and every time he does this)

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
the amendment.


Hughes, with 140 seconds or so left to debate his bill, has everyone rise to vote, (we don't know if they actually get all the way through reading it... they may be voting on something they haven't even read) it gets slapped down hard


Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
move that the Committee do now rise.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Chair's
understanding that the gentleman
from New Jersey moves that the Com-
mittee do now rise?
Mr. HUGHES. That is my motion,
Mr. Chairman. I move that the Com-
mittee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES].
The question was taken;

NOTE: Mr Chairman (Good Ol, Charlie Rangel, AGAIN can't seem to tell that 298 is bigger than 124, and what a coincidence, he's one of the 124)


and the
Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 124, noes
298, not voting 12, as follows:
(Roll No. 73]

So... The electronic vote tally's everything up, and the motion/amendment has been soundly defeated... or has it?

Some guy named Weiss, uses up the last of the time going on a TOTALLY unrelated diatribe about martin luther king and random stuff totally un related to machine guns..

0 1130
The CHAIRMAN. All time has ex-
pired for consideration of the Hughes
amendment to the Volkmer substitute.
For what purpose does the gentle-
man from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES]
rise?

Time has run out, Hughes, desperately tries to get some more time to explain why machine guns are bad

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I have
a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I made the motion to
rise so that I could get additional time
for the Rules Committee to finish
debate on a number of amendments
that were noticed, have not been
reached and will not be heard, and
that is unfortunate. It is an important
matter.
My unanimous-consent request is
that I have 5 minutes to explain this
vote.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. A point of
order. Mr. Chairman, that is not a
proper Inquiry.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, a
point of order. Regular order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state his unanimous-consent re-
quest.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, my
unanimous request is that I have 5
minutes to explain this vote on ma-
chinegun bans.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reserving the
right to object, Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman explain why he wants
that 5 minutes?
Mr. HUGHES. So we can explain
what is pending before the House.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I
withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES]?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.

Because he framed it as a unanimous consent, a simple objection overrules the request by Hughes for more time


The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. HUGHES] to the amend-
ment, as amended, offered by the gen-
tleman from Missouri [Mr. VOLKMER]
as a substitute for the Judiciary Com-
mittee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.

This is where the voice vote is supposed to have occurred

The amendment to the amendment,
as amended, offered as a substitute for
the Judiciary Committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was agreed to.

So, no record of the vote is made, no objections are made to the declaration (BY Charlie Rangel) that it passed... kind of strange, considering he's been 100% wrong all day in calling these things...

Everyone apparently is getting ready for the ultimate vote on the bill which is up next.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment, as amended, offered
by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
VOLKMER], as a substitute for the Judi-
ciary Committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Well, wouldn't you know it Charlie Rangel calls it for his team AGAIN...


April 10, 1986


RECORDED VOTE
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 286, noes
136, not voting 12, as follows:

Once again, Rangel is wrong, 286 apparently is bigger than 136 and the FOPA passes.



And that's how it happened.

I should have the footage in 4-9 weeks and will be posting it on Vimeo/youtube when it gets here

[IronSight]

Good work, I look forward to seeing the footage.

[Lazydog]

Wow, Good work. The question now is if this can all be reversed if true?

[streaker69]

Originally Posted by Lazydog

Wow, Good work. The question now is if this can all be reversed if true?

...and what would it take to actually reverse it? Is it a Executive, Legislature or Judicial issue? I'd think Legislature, but I really don't know. It is very interesting. It also begs the question, how many other times as this kind of thing happened and has never been caught?

[KJP442]

That is extremely interesting. Keep the thread updated.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Lazydog

Wow, Good work. The question now is if this can all be reversed if true?

Originally Posted by streaker69

...and what would it take to actually reverse it? Is it a Executive, Legislature or Judicial issue? I'd think Legislature, but I really don't know. It is very interesting. It also begs the question, how many other times as this kind of thing happened and has never been caught?

It shouldn't an issue of reversing it, because without following proper procedure, it never passed, and if it never passed, the amendment should never have been in the final version of the bill.

I would think any recourse would have to be through the courts, I'm not sure how an appeal to the legislature would have any weight to force them to act, and likewise with the executive office.

With all that said, the most likely counter-argument will be: "Although the amendment was added in violation of parliamentary procedure, members had a chance to voice their opposition to such tactics by voting against the bill on final consideration".

[Ajax22]

Separation of powers will prevent this from being tackled by the judiciary.

It is a procedural issue which was up to the house of 1986 to address, in theory the current house might be able to do something with it, but it would be unlikely.

The main objective here is to obtain clear evidence of any shenanigans which occurred, then publicize it so people know what happened.

Then we can channel that outrage into getting fence sitters and the non committed into the 2A fight. And, hopefully in the process make the 86 ban a subject of conversation again... remember there is now a whole generation of gunnies who don't even know it happened, or that the NRA has yet to fulfill its promise to address the issue.





April 10, 2011 will mark the 25 year anniversary

[bac0nfat]

Anybody else getting that feeling of butterflies in their stomach?

I'm already making my shopping list!

[kadar]

Makes me curious to what else they have deceived us with. I find it hard to believe that in 210 years that this was the first.

[Steelblitz]

Originally Posted by bac0nfat

Anybody else getting that feeling of butterflies in their stomach?

No, not at all. This is nothing we can get the courts involved in. They don't get involved in matters of legislative procedures. So we stand very little chance of having any influence on exposing another Rangel case of fraud. You'll never get this Congress, or the upcoming one, including our sitting Prez, to sign into law a bill overturning the Hughes Amendment, and those are the only ways this is going away in regards to this being exposed as a fraudulent legislative procedures being used to push the amendment. I feel we stand a much better chance of a legal battle in the courts challenging the ban itself in light of current 2nd Amendment victories.