”

I haven’t heard of a Hughes Amendment challenge / test case yet.”

I don’t (much) have a problem with the NFA ‘hoops’, I’d just like a shot at being able to pay that dratted tax without a 20,000 USD surcharge.

And I agree waiting for an AWB and magazine limit is probably a a wiser choice…

I haven’t heard of a Hughes Amendment challenge / test case yet. I’ll check with my sources.

My guess is that FPC and the other usual suspects want SCOTUS to deal with an AWB case first. If ACB and Roberts wimp out on an AWB challenge, then there’s no way a Hughes Amendment challenge makes it.

Indeed, if SCOTUS takes up an AWB case (and my money is on them doing so on the Fourth Circuit’s ridiculous ruling of the MD AWB), having a Hughes Amendment challenge in the pipeline might cause Roberts to anticipatorily water Bruen down even more, a-la the language about machine guns that Kennedy reportedly demanded Scalia include in Heller. E.g., “while we strike down this particular state law, we are not suggesting that federal regulation of machine guns and other unusual and extraordinarily dangerous weapons are unconstitutional.”

We *might* see it raised in a case involving the prosecution of a gangbanger for having a Glock switch, which would be the worst possible test case (a-la Rahimi). Nothing we can do about that.

BTW, regarding the funky way the Hughes Amendment was passed (voice vote that the chair held “the ayes have it” when it was clear that the nays were much louder), the courts will never touch it — how Congress operates internally is a classic separation of powers issue that the courts properly steer clear of. And ultimately the FOPA (which included the Hughes Amendment) was passed by both chambers on recorded votes, so the issue is moot.

The way the Hughes Amendment was passed is also, frankly, an overwrought issue. Any GOP rep could have instantly demanded a roll call vote which would have made it clear what the vote actually was. That nobody did is probably because they had counted noses and knew the Dems had the votes to pass it, and/or the Dem leadership told the GOP that the price of getting FOPA passed (Dems controlled both chambers in 1986) was the Hughes Amendment.

“Oh, okay. I thought one of the authors here said he owned one.”

I have a vague recollection they were new at the time, and some are in circulation.

I also recall very few, if any; were sold due to the fact muzzle rise was so bad on them, they had a shit reputation…

“Thanks to the Hughes Amendment, any MG’s not on the registry as of 1986 can’t be added. As there were no Glock switches at that time, the only people who can legally possess them are SOT holders (i.e., licensed MG manufacturers who sell to LE/mil).”

Any word on whether or not challenges to the despised (by us, anyways) Hughes Amendment are in the works?

Or is that a not-starter due to it being a rider on law that was drafted by Congress and signed into law?

In my layman’s legally ignorant opinion, the very fact the Hughes Amendment was added due to a procedural ‘trick’ ought to make it open to legal challenge…

I suspected they were using blanks and/or simunition type cartridges rather than “real” ammunition.

Oh, okay. I thought one of the authors here said he owned one. Maybe he just shot an LE one. He did say that it being uncontrollable was a myth.

Nope. Thanks to the Hughes Amendment, any MG’s not on the registry as of 1986 can’t be added. As there were no Glock switches at that time, the only people who can legally possess them are SOT holders (i.e., licensed MG manufacturers who sell to LE/mil). It’s not like suppressors or SBR’s that you can Form 1 or Form 4.

But you are right that Glock switches are already illegal. So why doesn’t DoJ go after all the Chicagoland gangbangers with them? I mean, those are layup cases, with mandatory 10 year sentences (20 if they were committing another crime with the illegal MG). (Hint: look at the demographics of the gangbangers . . . . )

Yes.

It’s perfectly legal, just like suppressors, as long as you go through the process. This is the “Do Something!” Brigade making criminal use of firearms illegaler. In other words, it will only hurt the people who are following the law. Same story, different day.