need a Sen or Cong to repeal the Hughes Amendment so machine guns can be sold

[robertwerden]

I'm tired of seeing my bushmaster not firing fully automatic, and I'm tired of staring at machine guns from the 1980's that cost $10k.

I don't understand how the Hughes Amendment got to Reagans desk in the first place, or why no one has repealed it yet, but I think it is about time we took back our 2nd amendment to fire shit loads of bullets down range at watermelons and 2 liter bottles like god intended.

+rep if you agree

 

[aloneinthewilderness]

The Hughes Amendment was one of the biggest blows to the Second Amendment regarding its original intent. I would love to see it repealed, along with the whole NFA, but I have my doubts that it would get past the Democrats in the Senate. My brain's a little fuzzy on how the repeal process works, though.

 

[robertwerden]

The repeal works just like the insertion. With any popular legislation, the repeal is paper clipped to the bill, with the understanding that if the legislation is to pass, the repeal must pass as well. It is dirty politics, but if you research the way the Hughes got in in the first place, it is fitting to place the repeal on every bill that there is until it passes.
I really wish I had a senators ear on this one.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

the FPS Russia guy seems to be able to get hold of heavy duty weapons pretty easily. Might want to contact him.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

I'm tired of seeing my bushmaster not firing fully automatic, and I'm tired of staring at machine guns from the 1980's that cost $10k.

I don't understand how the Hughes Amendment got to Reagans desk in the first place, or why no one has repealed it yet, but I think it is about time we took back our 2nd amendment to fire shit loads of bullets down range at watermelons and 2 liter bottles like god intended.

Lightweight full-auto rifles have that lure of the forbidden fruit, but once you've fired them a few times, you see that they're really not all they're cracked up to be. Military studies have shown that semi-auto fire is almost always more effective, at least in rifles. This is why you rarely see US soldiers in current conflicts shooting bursts from their rifles. They leave that to the belt-fed weapons.

Subguns and belt-fed weapons are another story. Burst fire is useful in submachine guns because these are short-range, low-recoil weapons; they tend to act like shotguns at close range when they shoot bursts. Belt-fed weapons have the weight (lower recoil), ammo capacity, and heat tolerance to be useful on full-auto, though their weight also makes them a chore to lug around.

Regardless of the pluses and minuses, we SHOULD be able to buy any of these weapons legally. They absolutely lie under the protection of the Second Amendment.

By the way, wanna know what really pisses me off? When some guy gets caught with an illegal auto weapon (or busted because his malfunctioning weapon was firing doubles or triples), lots of people on supposedly "pro-gun" boards will make comments justifying his arrest. "He broke the law, blah blah blah..." This is an example of coward psychology: the tendency to side with the "winning team," i.e., the "strong side" in any conflict -- especially if that means siding with those wearing the mantle of authority. Anyone who doesn't have a major problem with someone getting arrested for "illegal" possession of an NFA weapon is an enemy of the Second Amendment and freedom itself.

 

[Tod]

totally agree.

 

[Professor8000]

the FPS Russia guy seems to be able to get hold of heavy duty weapons pretty easily. Might want to contact him.

He uses a lot of loaner weapons from gun ranges and weapons dealers, fully automatic rifles are very expensive and constitute a serious investment. He does own a few, but a lot of the ones you see on his show are loaned to him. Actually, they are probably rented.

 

[Sullivan*]

Lightweight full-auto rifles have that lure of the forbidden fruit, but once you've fired them a few times, you see that they're really not all they're cracked up to be. Military studies have shown that semi-auto fire is almost always more effective, at least in rifles. This is why you rarely see US soldiers in current conflicts shooting bursts from their rifles. They leave that to the belt-fed weapons.

Subguns and belt-fed weapons are another story. Burst fire is useful in submachine guns because these are short-range, low-recoil weapons; they tend to act like shotguns at close range when they shoot bursts. Belt-fed weapons have the weight (lower recoil), ammo capacity, and heat tolerance to be useful on full-auto, though their weight also makes them a chore to lug around.

Regardless of the pluses and minuses, we SHOULD be able to buy any of these weapons legally. They absolutely lie under the protection of the Second Amendment.

By the way, wanna know what really pisses me off? When some guy gets caught with an illegal auto weapon (or busted because his malfunctioning weapon was firing doubles or triples), lots of people on supposedly "pro-gun" boards will make comments justifying his arrest. "He broke the law, blah blah blah..." This is an example of coward psychology: the tendency to side with the "winning team," i.e., the "strong side" in any conflict -- especially if that means siding with those wearing the mantle of authority. Anyone who doesn't have a major problem with someone getting arrested for "illegal" possession of an NFA weapon is an enemy of the Second Amendment and freedom itself.

Better make sure you throw the NRA in there. There was an article I saw from an NRA exec bloviating about what the 2nd Amendment protects, asked rhetorically if fully automatic weapons of any kind were protected - and his answer was "probably not." Fuck the NRA.

 

[pcosmar]

While you're at it,, Repeal the GCA of 1934 and all related amendments and attachments.

Go for the Root.

 

[gunnysmith]

As well, supressors, muliple other countries consider them personal protective equipment.
Also the NRA was partly responsible for the 1934 NFA act,
that was the point that first taxed a right and violated expost facto, what was legal to own before was a felony.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

Better make sure you throw the NRA in there. There was an article I saw from an NRA exec bloviating about what the 2nd Amendment protects, asked rhetorically if fully automatic weapons of any kind were protected - and his answer was "probably not." Fuck the NRA.

Agreed -- fuck the NRA. They're a bunch of punks.

Some say, "Without the NRA, you'd lose your gun rights." These idiots seem to think that if politicians succeeded in legally banning guns, we'd all just have to turn them in like sheep. Hello? What the hell do they think the Second Amendment is for?

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'm tired of seeing my bushmaster not firing fully automatic, and I'm tired of staring at machine guns from the 1980's that cost $10k.

I don't understand how the Hughes Amendment got to Reagans desk in the first place, or why no one has repealed it yet, but I think it is about time we took back our 2nd amendment to fire shit loads of bullets down range at watermelons and 2 liter bottles like god intended.

+rep if you agree

The Hughes amendment was another one of those "compromises" that litter the swamps of DC.

It was a plum tacked on to the FOPA (McClure-Volkmer) by one of the most anti gun members of Congress ever, to get anti gunners to go along with FOPA.

So, now, here we are, 26 years later, FOPA is routinely ignored, especially by local LEOs in places like NY, NJ, IL, MA and CA, along with ATF.

(FOPA prohibited records being kept of non NFA firearms purchases, and "safe passage" is routinely denied to people in full compliance with the law, passing through states listed above).

And a whole class of firearms remain banned.

Not to mention the fact that the amendment was passed under shady circumstances:

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4] that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.

In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[5][6] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.

Shit like this is why I'll have nothing to do with the "compromisers" and the "politics players" in government.

 

[oyarde]

The Hughes Amendment was one of the biggest blows to the Second Amendment regarding its original intent. I would love to see it repealed, along with the whole NFA, but I have my doubts that it would get past the Democrats in the Senate. My brain's a little fuzzy on how the repeal process works, though.

I am hopeful for some turn over in the Senate this coming election...

 

[oyarde]

Lightweight full-auto rifles have that lure of the forbidden fruit, but once you've fired them a few times, you see that they're really not all they're cracked up to be. Military studies have shown that semi-auto fire is almost always more effective, at least in rifles. This is why you rarely see US soldiers in current conflicts shooting bursts from their rifles. They leave that to the belt-fed weapons.

Subguns and belt-fed weapons are another story. Burst fire is useful in submachine guns because these are short-range, low-recoil weapons; they tend to act like shotguns at close range when they shoot bursts. Belt-fed weapons have the weight (lower recoil), ammo capacity, and heat tolerance to be useful on full-auto, though their weight also makes them a chore to lug around.

Regardless of the pluses and minuses, we SHOULD be able to buy any of these weapons legally. They absolutely lie under the protection of the Second Amendment.

By the way, wanna know what really pisses me off? When some guy gets caught with an illegal auto weapon (or busted because his malfunctioning weapon was firing doubles or triples), lots of people on supposedly "pro-gun" boards will make comments justifying his arrest. "He broke the law, blah blah blah..." This is an example of coward psychology: the tendency to side with the "winning team," i.e., the "strong side" in any conflict -- especially if that means siding with those wearing the mantle of authority. Anyone who doesn't have a major problem with someone getting arrested for "illegal" possession of an NFA weapon is an enemy of the Second Amendment and freedom itself.

Those laws are bullshit and UnConstitutional , shall not be infringed .

 

[Pericles]

The Hughes amendment may be closer to being eliminated than many think. As you may remember, the constitutional basis of the NFA is that it is a tax (of course most of the membership here find it prima facie unconstitutional).

The successful challenges have used this basis to get cases for unregistered MGs tossed - for example:

in United States v. Rock Island Armory, Inc., 773 F.Supp. 117 (C.D.Ill. 1991)

Since its passage in 1934, the registration, taxation, and other requirements of the National Firearms Act ("NFA") have been upheld by the courts under the power of Congress to raise revenue. However, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which became effective on May 19, 1986, prohibits possession of machineguns, and thereby repealed or rendered unconstitutional the portions of the National Firearms Act which provided for the raising of revenue from the making, possession, and transfer of machineguns made after such date. As the government conceded at oral argument, the United States refuses to register or accept tax payments for the making or transfer of machineguns made after 1986. Thus, § 922(o), as applied to machineguns made after May 19, 1986, left the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act without any constitutional basis.

The .gov did not appeal this decision. Other circuits still hold the Hughes amendment constitutional, to the detriment of Hamblen and Ardoin, but both of these cases are pre Heller - and the courts in those districts were still in "collective right" mode on the 2A in general.

The SCOTUS is already on record as the only basis for the NFA is to raise revenue -

The Supreme Court affirmed the Seventh Circuit in Sonzinsky, 300 U.S. 506, 57 S.Ct. 554. The defendant argued:

that the present levy is not a true tax, but a penalty imposed for the purpose of suppressing traffic in a certain noxious type of firearms, the local regulation of which is reserved to the states because not granted to the national government.
​

Id. at 512, 57 S.Ct. at 555. In other words, the defendant contended that the Tenth Amendment power of the states to regulate firearms in their criminal codes was an exclusive power not delegated to the federal government.
The Supreme Court found the National Firearms Act on its face to be a revenue measure and nothing more. The Court noted:

The case is not one where the statute contains regulatory provisions related to a purported tax in such a way as has enabled this Court to say in other cases that the latter is a penalty resorted to as a means of enforcing the regulations.... Nor is the subject of the tax described or treated as criminal by the taxing statute.... Here Section 2 contains no regulations other than the mere registration provisions, which are obviously supportable as in aid of a revenue purpose. On its face it is only a taxing measure....
Id. at 513, 57 S.Ct. at 555.​

Therefore the easiest plan of attack it to get a case to the SCOTUS because different circuits have differing rulings on this area of the law, and the SCOTUS is needed to resolve the inconsistency of rulings by the different circuit courts.

Of course, as with Hamblen, the SCOTUS can refuse to hear the appeal, but over time, it is clear that this minority view of the 5th circuit will have to become the majority view (one of the reasons you don't see a bunch of mahcine gun cases in the courts right now - guys like Friesen are fighting back, and the ATF is caving in rather than risk having their "baby" get tossed with the bath water.

The 4th and 5th Circuit go this way:

We adopt the analysis of the Fourth Circuit. The NFA can be upheld on the preserved, but unused, power to tax or on the power to regulate interstate commerce. Since the provisions of the NFA can be reconciled with the FOPA, the doctrine of implicit repeal must be rejected.

But in the best dissent ever:

The majority's "just say no" response, like that of the Fourth Circuit before it-in effect telling Ardoin that he could have avoided violation of the NFA simply "by not possessing or manufacturing any ... machineguns"-is even more troublesome to me. I keep asking myself "why is it that each time I revisit the majority's response I am reminded of Marie Antoinette's advice to 'let them eat cake'?" Such casual, dismissive responses are just not satisfactory when it comes to engaging in an activity, such as keeping and bearing arms, that arguably implicates the Bill of Rights.

Ultimately, this view will prevail, one way or another.
​

 

[KCIndy]

Better make sure you throw the NRA in there. There was an article I saw from an NRA exec bloviating about what the 2nd Amendment protects, asked rhetorically if fully automatic weapons of any kind were protected - and his answer was "probably not." Fuck the NRA.

The NRA has been compromising itself (and our rights) down the road to tyranny for decades now.

Gun Owners of America (www.gunowners.org) is a much more solid Second Amendment organization. Check out the quote on their home page: "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington." - Ron Paul (R-TX)

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'd love to see the 34, 68, and 86 laws repealed, but tactically you don't want to go up against superior firepower trying to out firepower them. Of course, it would be nice to have that option available and as restoration of our natural liberties, but I'd really love to see all the 'explosives' shit repealed ASAP. Dynamite and other explosives have much more utility, and let's not kid ourselves as to the function and purpose of the 2A. Lexington Green anyone?

 

[AuH20]

Fully auto is very inefficient and overrated on most rifle types, but I'd love to have the 3 round burst back.

 

[GuerrillaXXI]

I'd love to see the 34, 68, and 86 laws repealed, but tactically you don't want to go up against superior firepower trying to out firepower them. Of course, it would be nice to have that option available and as restoration of our natural liberties, but I'd really love to see all the 'explosives' shit repealed ASAP. Dynamite and other explosives have much more utility, and let's not kid ourselves as to the function and purpose of the 2A. Lexington Green anyone?

+rep!

Actually, some high explosives are perfectly LEGAL to buy and even make right now. An example is Tannerite, which is a high explosive that's designed to detonate only when it's hit with a high-velocity rifle (a detonator will also set it off, though). Here's where to get it:

http://www.tannerite.com/

Make no mistake: this stuff is for real. Its main ingredients are ammonium nitrate and aluminum powder. Watch what 12 lbs of Tannerite will do to a car:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u617P7g3O7I

For those interested in the legal restrictions, the law is that the Tannerite (which comes as two separate ingredients) isn't really an "explosive" until it's mixed. As long as it's mixed and used on-site, without any storage or transportation, it's not subject to explosives regulations. Daniel Tanner, the inventor and patent-holder for Tannerite, has been fighting a lot of court battles to keep this stuff legally available.

Tannerite can also be improvised like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KQO_9tN2mw

IMO, everyone who's dedicated to freedom has a DUTY to learn as much as possible about explosives -- how to make them, where to get ingredients, their capabilities and limitations, etc. This is both protected by the 2A and a critical part of it in this day and age.

It's not necessary to actually make anything illegal or dangerous until it's needed as a last resort -- if the shit really hits the fan.

There's plenty of information out there on the Web and in libraries. I can't urge people strongly enough to study up and become experts on this subject!

 

[robertwerden]

I am also thinking about this from an economic point of view. Imagine the market reaction from gun buyers if the full auto gun market opened up. With the scarcity and rarity removed, the market would dictate the price of full auto weapons down to those that are consistent with the engineering that is involved in producing the weapons. Gun enthusiasts would now be able to afford these products and the industry would benefit from the reintroduction of these consumer products into the market place.

I could see this as a boost to the economy considering how well the gun industry has been doing since 2008.

The time is right for this on a political level as well. As we all know, "When the people fear the Government there is Tyranny, but when the government fears the people there is Liberty".