Professional Soldiers ® - Machine Guns WEREN'T Banned?

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- General Discussions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)

- - Machine Guns WEREN'T Banned? (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32084)

Machine Guns WEREN'T Banned?

Definitely a Swirling Dervish...probably belongs in the comedy zone...but I dunno, I wouldn't bet on it.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=178439

Quote:

Machine Guns WEREN'T Banned?

Background: In 1986 an amendment called "The Hughes Amendment" was allegedly attached to wider firearms legislation in The House and passed. This amendment made unlawful the private ownership of machine guns manufactured after 1986.

Today, you can own a machine gun, but the Hughes Amendment, H.A.#777, effectively created a "sinking stock" of such weapons that will eventually dwindle to zero as they wear out. Hundreds of people have been convicted of violating this law since, some when their weapons have malfunctioned rather than being intentionally modified.

There's a problem with this law, however. It appears that the amendment was never actually passed.

Archival footage of the actual House session has been found and is reproduced here.

Note who's standing up there with the gavel. That's Chairman Rangel. Yes, that Charlie Rangel. And by the way, you can see quite-clearly that The House Committee at the time was damn close to being in full-on revolt at the time Rangel was allegedly "Chairing" it!

Watch the video. It is quite clear that not only did the voice vote on the amendment fail but in addition it appears, if someone hasn't tampered with this video, that there was an electronic recorded vote that went down on the question as well.

If this is as it appears then each and every prosecution of a person under this alleged amendment that was never actually passed has been tried, convicted and imprisoned under a law that does not exist! That is, they have been kidnapped by the plain definition of the word - held against their will without legal justification or cause.

Might this footage be doctored? It might be.

Judge for yourself.

Video

This really isnt new news. It has been known since the beginning that Rangle passed the Yea vote even though the nays had it. Additionally the electric vote went to the nays.

The issue was no one was able to find the CSPAN video. CSPAN didnt even keep a copy. I guess the library of congress did.

Not sure what it will do but it proves the crookedness of the Hughes amendment.

FOPA was good other than that.

MK262M1 sends

That's the first I heard of it. It's a good watch if for no other reason than to watch the chaos that goes on much of the time. It is no wonder things are a mess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK262MOD1 (Post 371830)

Quite correct sir, and the US District Court for Illinois found the same thing in US v. Rock Island Armory. Unfortunately, the US did not appeal (smart move on their part), and no one continues to question the tainted language in ATF policy based on this subsection. Not as unfortunate as defendant in US v. Miller failing to show up ages ago, but significant certainly. Haven't seen anyone standing in line to make the first phone call saying, "Hi, I've made a machine gun, can you tell me about how to register it?"

Some interesting - albeit polite - assessments of that Amendment in that case, a summary of which can be found here. They weren't buying the "taxing for revenue opportunity" nexus either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paslode (Post 371813)

Definitely a Swirling Dervish...probably belongs in the comedy zone...but I dunno, I wouldn't bet on it.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=178439

Video

these are supposedly legal (bump fire) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1Whh...layer_embedded