Repeal the Hughes Amendment

Seems to me that would be the quickest way to be sure that HR822 wouldn't pass.

I have no problem with such a measure, but I'm a pragmatic guy.
 
Seems to me that would be the quickest way to be sure that HR822 wouldn't pass.
Click to expand...
+1; if a "poison pill" provision ever existed, this would be it. :eek:

I agree with 44 AMP and Tom Servo. This issue is the third rail of American gun politics. It would be nearly impossible for a Hughes repeal to pass unnoticed. HR822 is under a microscope; the only conceivable avenue would be to bury it in a huge omnibus bill, and even if that were done, it would probably have to be sponsored by someone willing to sacrifice their electoral career to it.

Honestly, I think the best hope for a Hughes "repeal" is to somehow neuter it in the courts first, thereby forcing Congress to act. Frankly, I don't see it happening anytime in the near future.
 
New Petition

My friends and I have created a new petition for repealing the amendment. I know I'm reviving an old thread, but I am trying to spread the word. I plan to leave the petition up until after the election to gather as many signatures as possible hoping the political winds shift our way this November. I know its a long shot. I'm asking for your signatures and to share it everywhere you can, book of faces, word of mouth, other forums, email, etc.

http://www.change.org/petitions/uni...eal-the-hughes-amendment-of-the-fopa-nfa-1986

Thanks
- Dave
 
Well, I know I'm going to get slammed for this addition to the thread, but so be it.

In my opinion, second amendment provides, in line with the times in which it was written, to allow the individual to bear arms. I do not believe that any of the founding fathers thought for a moment that it should be okay to possess a fully automatic machine gun privately. I also believe the right to bear arms was enacted for personal protection and hunting purposes, as the lifestyle back then would demand.
 
Well, I know I'm going to get slammed for this addition to the thread, but so be it.

In my opinion, second amendment provides, in line with the times in which it was written, to allow the individual to bear arms. I do not believe that any of the founding fathers thought for a moment that it should be okay to possess a fully automatic machine gun privately. I also believe the right to bear arms was enacted for personal protection and hunting purposes, as the lifestyle back then would demand.
__________________
Click to expand...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[

The security of a free state does not depend on personal protection and hunting purposes. Also, the founding fathers did not think for a moment that it should be okay to posses a fully automatic machine gun privately because at the time they did not exist. I would argue that even though the idea of a gun that fired many bullets automatically may have been floating around, it was so far off that it was considered a fairy tale. Much like if today someone tried to enact legislation to ban/protect lightsabers.

Consider the free spirit of the founding fathers, and their fear of homegrown tyranny, and I believe that you may reconsider your position.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
By the time it does, we will be carrying ray guns and debating whether you should carry a Glock phaser or 1911.
Click to expand...

You're no doubt referring to the 1911 Thermal Tissue Disruptor. A way better option for SD than the old fashioned Glock phaser. :D
 
This petition is to repeal the National Firearms Act (NFA) 1986 also known as “The Hughes Amendment” as in part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act, H.R. 4332 as the NFA has no discernible benefit. We the people ask that this violation of our rights as free law abiding citizens of the United States be removed.
Click to expand...
There are a number of problems with your petition. The first is that the opening sentence is a grammatical nightmare. I'm not being facetious: that really does matter if you want to be taken seriously.

The second is that it's factually inaccurate. The NFA and the Hughes Amendment are two separate things, written 54 years apart.

Third, it's not time to repeal the NFA yet. Machine guns in particular are still the rhetorical third rail when it comes to 2nd Amendment advocacy. Even if the petition were to be noticed and taken seriously, you'd find little real support for it, and a premature push could result in a net loss.
 
That's actually the exact type of thing we need. Someone to get into office and sneak the repeal in and maybe change the import laws as well. They'll of probably be voted out of office because bloomberg and the Brady bunch will surely release ads trying to convince the public to do so, but we will have our freedoms restored by that time anyway.
Click to expand...

Consider that right now the majority of "Americans" believe with all their heart "silencers" and machine guns are in all ways illegal for private citizens. Sneak something into congress like this, and it is possible you will see alarmist media claiming that anyone could go and buy a machine gun no questions asked. At that point, you would more than likely have a very large group of voters calling for them to be banned completely. Right now those that fear machine-guns do not know to call for their complete ban because most of them don't know you can buy them with the right process.

I have found that the level of fear the antigun populace really has about them is scary. They are fed nonsense, kept naive, and thus spew misinformation and meaningless alarmist concerns.
 
Sorry, no dice. A machine gun is a dangerous weapon. And by the fact that it is automatic only makes it much more dangerous than a regular firearm. I would not feel safe knowing anyone could get their hands on a machine gun. And I do not believe that had the founding fathers known, of/about them would they have condoned this weapon in a private home setting. I'm pro firearm and the ability to bear them under the second amendment, but there has to be limitations with the technology.
 
And I do not believe that had the founding fathers known, of/about them would they have condoned this weapon in a private home setting.
Click to expand...
You do know that, at the time of the founding, one could keep ships and artillery if he had the money, right? Cannons can be pretty nasty things.

The Founders didn't anticipate the internet, either. Yet, we accept that online communication is covered by the 1st Amendment. The Bill of Rights was never meant to be limited to contemporary means or tools.
 
Strong argument, still don't imagine they would have accepted this. Also, I'm pretty sure they would have referred to the internet as witchcraft or some such. My opinion is slightly jaded by the fact that I have seen such machine guns in action and have seen the destruction it can cause. Both to property and human life. Machine guns are not for the public.
 
still don't imagine they would have accepted this.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think they would have embraced it. They had just finished fighting a war with the most technologically advanced army at the time. They had some advancements that worked to their advantage in small arms and the logistics of rearming an entire army, but I doubt they would have the citizens use sticks and rocks against firearms of any kind. 2A doesn't specifically name firearms in the wording, it just said "arms." By your own freedom of interpretation we could argue that this just means we can have a spear for hunting, bows and projectile weapons are unnecessary. Our ancestors did it thousands of years ago, we can do it now too. (taking "primitive" hunting season a bit too primitive? ;)) The idea of arms was for the defense of the state as 2A states. 2A is about the people being able to defend their way of life. And I see it as a fail safe in case the stuff really gets blown out that fan when our own military doesn't quite have what it takes to keep foreign enemies off our shores.
 
Any petition to repeal the Hughes amendment can accomplish something positive only if, in the current political climate, a movement for repeal even has any "legs."

Consider, how many Congress Critters would not believe that their chances of re-election would be hurt by their opponents pointing out that they voted to make machine guns more available to private citizens? Sure, there might be a bunch of us who wouldn't care (and even might think it's a good thing). But there are probably too many voters who would think differently.

To put it another way, how many signatures do you think you'd need on the petition to convince enough Congress Critters that it would be worth it to put their careers on the line to vote for repeal of the Hughes Amendment? Do you really think you could get that many?

Bottom line, I'm afraid that politically this is probably a non-starter.
 
TheMacMocek said:
Why not just slip the repeal in as an amendment to some other law, the same way the Hughes amendment passed in the first place
Click to expand...

If the NFA is essentially tax legislation then sliding an amending clause - that reopens the Registry - into one of the various multiple volume tax bills would seem to be an effective way of progressing the issue.

I'd note that NFA 34 seems on its face to run afoul of the prohibition of taxing rights - see Minneapolis Star Tribune case. However, as others have noted thats a case very much for the future.
 
SilentScreams said:
Sorry, no dice. A machine gun is a dangerous weapon. And by the fact that it is automatic only makes it much more dangerous than a regular firearm. I would not feel safe knowing anyone could get their hands on a machine gun.
Click to expand...

You must not feel safe then. There is no law against owning a machine gun of just about any type. The only barrier to owning one is the inflated price caused by government sanction. Provided, of course, the prospective owner is otherwise legally qualified to posses firearms.

I have considered buying a full auto, but have not due to the price. That, and the cost of feeding one. :)
 
As much as I would like to see this restriction removed, I feel it will be a while, and also I am conflicted on whether or not it will be through congress, or, more then likely through the court system.

More then likely though it will be through the court system. I am unsure of what would be the "ideal" case for this though.

I dont think this petition will be of much help at this time... Do I feel it is great to call attention to the issue? Yes, but properly...With all the media scrutiny over firearms, not only in self defense, but just ownership in general, I feel we may be better served to pick a better time for this battle in order to better win it. I do appreciate your good intentions.

As to SilentScreams fears about people owning NFA items, I do not agree. There are many things that I see little or no use for, that I not only have no interest in, but try to avoid being around when possible, even though they are legal. Do I support people owning them? Yes. Why? America is a free country with some exceptions we are trying to work on. Why should I want to impose my personal views on others? I shouldnt, because I support a free America for all.

I also feel that the founding fathers would support this more then many realize. Afterall, they supported the private ownership of not only firearms, but the modern artillery of the day as well. Artillery meaning mortars, cannon, howitzers, etc. While people say they are worried about automatic firearms, I would rather face that, then I had artillery. With a bullet, even from an automatic firearm, it may well be "to whom it may concern" but with artillery it can be "your close enough anyway" when it comes to a shell going off near you.
 
More then likely though it will be through the court system. I am unsure of what would be the "ideal" case for this though.
Click to expand...
Our first step will most likely be a case for re-opening the registry for guns folks who already have unregistered machine guns. Several times a year, I speak with people who have had an older relative pass away, and the deceased left a hot potato or two in their gun collection. Right now, their only option is to surrender the weapon for destruction without any compensation.
 
Tom,

I agree that trying to fight the closed registry would be with an heirloom case due to no compensation. I have often wondered if another case would be of a LEO that is issued a new automatic firearm, and is required to keep it in his/her possession, but is unable to purchase one legally theirself. As a group though we need to work toward getting a small, but solid crack started so we can get the registry re-opened.

Enjoy your day
 
The second amendment certainly protects the right to own a machine gun or almost any weapon that isnt a weapon of mass destruction... However I agree with waiting until the SCOTUS determines the 2A is a civil right... once that happens its game on...

I cant imagine a world were the 2A wouldnt be a civil right under our constitution given the other rights are to the best of my knowledge all civil rights...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top