'86 Machine Gun (Volkmer) Ban vote now online - did the Ay's really have it?

[bafsu92]

It's been debated for quite some time that Rangle violated Roberts Rules and pushed this legislation through even though many people who claimed to watch the vote on C-Span said the Nay's easily outnumbered the Ay's by 2-1. There was supposedly quite a bit of booing from the floor as well. I remember hearing about this at the time but I was only 15 so I didn't watch a lot of C-Span yet. Well the video has finally surfaced online after a lot of effort from some members of ar15.com and snipershide.com. The full video is in 4 parts and can be seen here:


http://vimeo.com/19173055

http://vimeo.com/19163920

http://vimeo.com/19179485

http://vimeo.com/19185561

or just the highlights and vote can be seen here:

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


I feel like it's pretty obvious that this didn't pass. I've already written my Senator's and Congressman to bring this issue to their attention. It's time to fight to get this unconstitutional legislation off the books. If I had the money to mount a legal fight I'd turn in a Form 1 to convert my SBR to full auto. As soon as I was turned down I'd start going through the legal process with this video as my main argument. Hopefully someone out there with a lot more money than I have will do this. If this can get to the SCOTUS before Obama gets a chance to shift the numbers anymore than he already has we may actually be able to own a full auto toy that doesn't cost as much as a decent car. here's a good sample letter for your congress types:

To the office of Congressman/woman XXXXX

Congressman/woman,

I would like to call your attention to a significant issue which has recently come to light.

On April 10th 1986, Congressman Rangel (D, NY) while acting as chairman pro-tem, did willfully and purposefully violate Roberts rules of parliamentary procedure by deciding a voice vote and then ignoring requests from the floor for a recorded vote to confirm.

It was through this malicious and vindictive act that the Hughes amendment to the 1986 Volkmer bill (aka HR4332 the Firearm owners protection act) was imposed upon the American people.

It was this amendment which created Title 18, 922(o), which has been responsible for significantly decreasing tax revenues paid to the BATFE, destroying an entire industry, and incarcerating over 1300 American Citizens for failing to pay a $200 tax which has been made impossible to pay.

You are in a position to set this right by repealing 922(o) (either directly or by amending one of the ‘must pass’ bills).

25 years is too long to have allowed this mans single handed constitutional infringement to go unanswered.

The video evidence of this fraud can be clearly seen by viewing the excerpt footage located here:


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

or by viewing the full archival footage from the Library of Congress which can be found here:


http://vimeo.com/19173055

http://vimeo.com/19163920

http://vimeo.com/19179485

http://vimeo.com/19185561

Please let me know how you intend to address this

Thank you,


XXXXXx

[fightingquaker13]

Thing is Basfu, Congress is like baseball. The official's calls are part of the game. There is no instant replay. As much as I am fully ready to believe Rangel might have called it as he wanted it, not as it was voted on, Reagan signed the bill. If you have complaints, send them to him. He could have vetoed it. He didn't. 25 years later? Even if you could prove it failed it wouldn't matter. Once the POTUS signs it, its law. As far as repealing it? It will never happen. No Congressman outside of the reddest of red districts will vote to legalize machine guns. It was one thing to vote against a new law, another thing again to repeal one that has been on the books for a quarter century and been endorsed by Reagan himself. This is the blowback from the GOP's cannonization of Reagan. If they had just regarded him as a good politician, they could say he screwed up now and again. Like in this case and on immigration. But by making him Saint Ronald, the GOP can't contradict him without calling tax cuts and all the rest of it into question. Its the downside of turning a real guy into a symbol of all that is right and good. Sometimes it bites you on the ass.
FQ13

[Solus]

Well, it sure won't get "Fixed" if no one makes it an issue.

A Snowball's Chance In Hades is better than not trying

[fullautovalmet76]

.....Reagan signed the bill. If you have complaints, send them to him. He could have vetoed it. He didn't. 25 years later? Even if you could prove it failed it wouldn't matter. Once the POTUS signs it, its law..... As far as repealing it? It will never happen. No Congressman outside of the reddest of red districts will vote to legalize machine guns......

So it's all Ronnie's fault here? So if a president signs a bill that was never passed by the congress it becomes law? Are you confusing executive orders?

You seem to be very smug about the prospects of repeal of this law, Quaker. A point of correction: machine guns are not illegal. One can not purchase any machine guns made after May 1986. I think it rather curious they did not outright ban them and demand they all be turned over to government then if they thought they were on solid constitutional grounds. They had the votes.

This law will be repealed or struck down. If not, the coming replacement of this government will take care of it for us too....

[fightingquaker13]

So it's all Ronnie's fault here? So if a president signs a bill that was never passed by the congress it becomes law? Are you confusing executive orders?

You seem to be very smug about the prospects of repeal of this law, Quaker. A point of correction: machine guns are not illegal. One can not purchase any machine guns made after May 1986. I think it rather curious they did not outright ban them and demand they all be turned over to government then if they thought they were on solid constitutional grounds. They had the votes.

This law will be repealed or struck down. If not, the coming replacement of this government will take care of it for us too....

From your mouth to God's ear. I am behind you on the fact that its a dumb law. The fact is, just like the AWB they grandfathered in older FAs, just like pre-ban mags, purely to sugarcoat the pill. And yes I am "smug" (though I prefer the term resigned) to the fact that no court will strike down a law based on Monday morning quarterbacking about which way a House vote should have gone. As far as whether its law if POTUS signs it? No, I'm not confusing the issue with executive orders. Its just like an appellate court doesn't revisit the facts of a case, they rely on the tral court to have settled that. Instead they rule only on procedural issues. Likewise the Court does not revisit the technicailties of voting procedures. They will say (as they should, unfortunately) that it passed each house, the reconciliation bill was passed, it went to the President for his sgnature, which it received, and it is therefore good law. The Court has not, and will not insert itself into the process of legislation if there is not reason to believe that Congress violated its Constitutional authority. The vote tallying rules of each House are plenary powers and beyond the scope of the Court to review (cf the cloture rule in the Senate). That falls to either the members to resolve, or the President by using the power of the veto. The Court has no say. Sorry, but unless a Congress critter will put forward a bill to allow the sale of modern FA weapons and it passes into law, the issue is dead.
FQ!3

[Sponsor]

[bafsu92]

Thing is Basfu, Congress is like baseball. The official's calls are part of the game. There is no instant replay. As much as I am fully ready to believe Rangel might have called it as he wanted it, not as it was voted on, Reagan signed the bill. If you have complaints, send them to him. He could have vetoed it. He didn't. 25 years later? Even if you could prove it failed it wouldn't matter. Once the POTUS signs it, its law. As far as repealing it? It will never happen. No Congressman outside of the reddest of red districts will vote to legalize machine guns. It was one thing to vote against a new law, another thing again to repeal one that has been on the books for a quarter century and been endorsed by Reagan himself. This is the blowback from the GOP's cannonization of Reagan. If they had just regarded him as a good politician, they could say he screwed up now and again. Like in this case and on immigration. But by making him Saint Ronald, the GOP can't contradict him without calling tax cuts and all the rest of it into question. Its the downside of turning a real guy into a symbol of all that is right and good. Sometimes it bites you on the ass.
FQ13

Well before this even surfaced a guy in GA, I think his name was Farmer, tried the method of submitting a Form 1, got it rejected, then sued. He made it all the way through the GA appellate courts but was the case was refused by the GA Supreme Court. Maybe if he, or someone else has the financial ability, and tries in the right state it could make it to the SCOTUS. If it can get that far I believe it would have a very good chance of being overturned. You see we're also dealing in euphemisms in this case since it's a so called "machine gun ban" yet what we're really talking about is automatic weapons. Not that individuals wouldn't want to own a belt-fed 50cal but just like the so called "assault weapons" ban they speak about and show one thing but ban something entirely different.

The argument that this won't have any effect is flawed. I know usually the courts will not look behind, your "instant replay" in the legislative process as a matter of separation of powers. Once the Vice President (or president pro tem) and the Speaker of the House certify that the respective bodies each passed a bill that's it. If the President then signs the bill it becomes law whether there was a procedural irregularity or not.

But with the possibility of corruption this entire process may not stand up to the challenge. If this is allowed to stay on the books then what you are saying essentially is that 3 people could write and pass any bill they want, all by themselves, regardless of what anybody else says about it, and SCOTUS wouldn't even be the slightest bit interested.

Now I'm no attorney, I was accepted to law school but that's about as close as I got, but as a layman, it seems to me that the court is charged with deciding constitutional matters. Something like this doesn't sound like a "procedural irregularity," it sounds like a cut and dry abuse of authority and a clear cut constitutional issue that the court would have a right and duty to decide on. If the law wasn't really passed, then no matter who "says" it was passed, or who signed it, it can't be a law, at least not in any way I can imagine. I don't see it as a simple separation of powers issue but another form of corruption that we as a people have not only tolerated for far to long but have perpetrated by not fighting for each individual right that has been stolen with the sound of a striking gavel.


 

[tombogan03884]

Rangel is nothing but a crook. Tom Delay gets 3 years this POS gets a slap on the wrist.