« Kids, don't try this at home | Main | Magnus v. US -- DC Ct of Appeals »
Webpage I'm building
Right here. It's devoted to the legislative history of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which extensively rewrote the Gun Control Act. A big problem is that researching the history of FOPA is almost impossible. Almost all of it is pre-digital. The standard first resource, US Code, Congressional, and Admin News, is hopeless -- it tells you there was no Senate committee report, and gives you, without explanation, a House committee report that doesn't describe what was enacted.
My aim is to present a reasonably complete legislative history, both in key word searchable text and in pdf scans (in case they are needed as exhibits in court). I've got the committee reports, a background report, and the House floor debates, plus some on S.2414, which modified the interstate travel section of the legislation. I've still got to scan and edit the Senate floor debates.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Interesting how the 68 gun control act was used against gun owners that often had no previous problems with any laws The law abiding were turned into felons by a mere technical violation. This is the kind of police enforcement that one would expect in North Korea or East Germany not in the US.
I know that Ajax22 on the Calguns forums is collecting legislative materials relating to the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA, there's a big thread over there devoted to it (in the second amendment related discussion subforum).
There seem to be a lot of efforts by unconnected people to make more info available on the Firearms Owners Protection Act, and especially the Hughes Amendment. Is there something in the works we don't know about?There seem to be a lot of efforts by unconnected people to make more info available on the Firearms Owners Protection Act, and especially the Hughes Amendment. Is there something in the works we don't know about?
I know some people think there may be reason for legal challenges to the Hughes Act based on irregularities in how it was passed, but I'm not sure the courts would override the legislature over a procedural issue that did not contravene the Constitution. Personally, I think the legal reasoning in _US vs Rock Island Armory_ is fairly persuasive that since the NFA was passed under Congress's power to tax, the government can not prosecute someone for not having a tax stamp if the government refused to accept the tax, and now that the Second Amendment is explicitly affirmed as referring to an individual right to private arms, a tax specifically on a right runs afoul of prior decisions (of course, then you have the Justices playing semantic games to try and claim that "arms" does not include weapons every police department in the country owns).
Arms is arms the founders did not state any restrictions on arms. The idea was to always allow the citizens equal arms to the government not lesser. This is the arguememt that needs to taken up with scotus. Regardless if they want to say theysupport the right to bare arms with restrictions or not the scotus should not change the 2nd ammendment to suit there beliefs it is clear. You have the right to keep and bare arms. Period nothing says only muzzleloaders hunting rifles shotguns for sporting it says keep and bare arms only, that means what it says any we want. If your an attorney and want to persue this pro binoculars I would be interested in taking this and rhe sporting gun act all the way as we will highly supported acrossed America. Time to get this rolling. Contact me
This is going to be an awesome resource!
Quick note - the bottom paragraph has ?? characters - must be from a cut and paste.