1986 FOPA Hughes amendment vote footage located

[AJAX22]

Hello,

I haven't had an excuse to join here untill just recently, but I would like to share some info with you that I've been working on. (I mostly hang out over at calguns.net)

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)
Library of Congress Web Site unavailable (Library of Congress)

I've submitted a price quote request, and should have a copy of the DVD here in a month or two, at which time I'll put the relevant sections on Youtube. as well as the total unedited raw footage.

So we may have this whole fiasco on video, possibly including the falsifying the congressional record, and thereby eliminating the creation of transferable machine guns.

At minimum we can dispel some of the rumors surrounding the whole issue.

For instance, It looks like despite popular legend the stuff that went down on the evening of april 9th was procedural and not the BIG screw up, April 10th seems to be when everything went screwy...



Some Parts of the transcript to note:

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 thats how it happened.


So the voice vote count is recorded as being the exact opposite as it was literally 5 minutes earlier? that doesn't make sense

Particularly when you compare the consistence of the individual votes within other bills, and charlie rangel's tendency to erroneously call victory for his team.

I've made up a spreadsheet that can be found here :

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?...PZkRxdVE&hl=en

As you can plainly see, (although i haven't finished yet) almost all of the people who voted aye on role 73, voted noe on role 74... AND almost all of the people who voted noe on role 73 voted aye on role 74...

So either a random and unrelated speech about martin Luther king caused a substantial of congress changed their minds in 5 minutes between the recorded vote 73 and the voice vote, even though they had just voted on it, and recorded as having failed was passed or no one caught that Rangel was simply calling all voice votes as favoring his team the entire day, even when it was clearly NOT

[PAGunner]

Let us know what the Library of Congress says in response. If they have video/audio evidence of this, paired with the recent legal troubles of Rangel we may be able to overturn this legislation. If not we should challenge it in Federal Court since the Senate will most likely vote against anything the Congress votes in favor of for the next 2 years.

[Bohemian]

Hello,

I haven't had an excuse to join here untill just recently, but I would like to share some info with you that I've been working on. (I mostly hang out over at calguns.net)

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



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:



I've submitted a price quote request, and should have a copy of the DVD here in a month or two, at which time I'll put the relevant sections on Youtube. as well as the total unedited raw footage.

So we may have this whole fiasco on video, possibly including the falsifying the congressional record, and thereby eliminating the creation of transferable machine guns.

At minimum we can dispel some of the rumors surrounding the whole issue.

For instance, It looks like despite popular legend the stuff that went down on the evening of april 9th was procedural and not the BIG screw up, April 10th seems to be when everything went screwy...



Some Parts of the transcript to note:

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).




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..




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.



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



And thats how it happened.


So the voice vote count is recorded as being the exact opposite as it was literally 5 minutes earlier? that doesn't make sense

Particularly when you compare the consistence of the individual votes within other bills, and charlie rangel's tendency to erroneously call victory for his team.






As you can plainly see, (although i haven't finished yet) almost all of the people who voted aye on role 73, voted noe on role 74... AND almost all of the people who voted noe on role 73 voted aye on role 74...

So either a random and unrelated speech about martin Luther king caused a substantial of congress changed their minds in 5 minutes between the recorded vote 73 and the voice vote, even though they had just voted on it, and recorded as having failed was passed or no one caught that Rangel was simply calling all voice votes as favoring his team the entire day, even when it was clearly NOT

Lets keep this kind of stuff on the same thread already in the works...
Nationwide call to action: Amend/Repeal/Challenge Constitutionality of 1986 FOPA

Also keep an eye on Ethically challenged Gun Ban Charlie Rangel whom is currently under all kinds of investigation...


Congress: Rangel apologizes

“Rep. Charles Rangel yesterday offered ‘heartfelt apologies’ for his embarrassing ethical misconduct yesterday, while his New York colleagues distanced themselves from the looming censure vote against the disgraced Harlem Democrat,” the New York Post writes. “‘There is no excuse for my acts of omission,’ Rangel wrote in an e-mail to supporters. ‘All of this has been brought upon me as a result of my own mistakes.’”
The New York Daily News: “Rep. Charles Rangel offers apology to supporters for ethics shenanigans.” ...
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/23/5515167-congress-rangel-apologizes

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6703516.shtml









CHARLES RANGEL ABRIDGED/INFRINGED THE SECOND AMENDMENT & THE CONSTITUTION

[Midnight]

Most interesting.

[AJAX22]

The price quote showed up today, and we've already raised the $391.25 to cover the cost.

The 2A community is amazing.

All the checks/paypal funds etc. are being gathered togeather and I'm prepping the order form... this is really happening.

Just keeping everyone updated

[Bohemian]

The price quote showed up today, and we've already raised the $391.25 to cover the cost.

The 2A community is amazing.

All the checks/paypal funds etc. are being gathered togeather and I'm prepping the order form... this is really happening.

Just keeping everyone updated

Seeing how you are a new member & all...

Just so everybody knows you are on the up & up... Can you post a scan of the quote?

I will do some ponying up myself once I see it...

And I agree our hearts appear to be in the same place, have you particpated in the poll & thread and let us know what district you will represent?
Nationwide call to action: Amend/Repeal/Challenge Constitutionality of 1986 FOPA

WTFU Sheeple, Take Back The Republic!

The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government - Stewart Rhoads, U.S. Army Ranger, Yale Educated Attorney and noted Constitutional Authority and founder of Oath Keepers....
Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

The Unabriged Second Amendment:
The Unabridged Second Amendment

[AJAX22]

All the fundraising is done, so please do not send me any additional monies. we were already able to get within 1.50 of the 391.25 needed for the transfer of the full two reels.

Please note that I requested two price quotes, one for a short excerpt, and one for the full vote, bill passage, and debate... so you can ignore image 4.

Here is a copy of the price quote (my personal info is redacted)




http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...deoOrder-4.jpg

[AJAX22]

with regard to the poll you linked to, I don't yet know which district I will be residing in at that time.

My intention has been to incorporate a business in the 10th circuit (Wyoming probably) to take advantage of the 86 MG ban being ruled unconstitutional in the 10th court decision US v rock Island Armory, and then using the business to apply to make a number of form 1 machine guns in order to obtain standing for a suit.

I'm finishing up at Columbia this December, and hopefully I'll land a good job which will allow me to dedicate more resources to pursuing 2A activism.

[Bohemian]

with regard to the poll you linked to, I don't yet know which district I will be residing in at that time.

My intention has been to incorporate a business in the 10th circuit (Wyoming probably) to take advantage of the 86 MG ban being ruled unconstitutional in the 10th court decision US v rock Island Armory, and then using the business to apply to make a number of form 1 machine guns in order to obtain standing for a suit.

I'm finishing up at Columbia this December, and hopefully I'll land a good job which will allow me to dedicate more resources to pursuing 2A activism.

Thanks for your contribution, will look forward to your updates...
Its the best pro-2a news I have heard in a long time...

Nationwide call to action: Amend/Repeal/Challenge Constitutionality of 1986 FOPA

[Hatchet]

watching this closly... hope the video has everything you need to get this done... thanks!!