Under Bruen’s “Text/History/Tradition” standard, I’m not the only one who thinks this is will be ripe for being ruled unconstitutional

Encounter with Yuma Police Officer and the Hughes Amendment

Normally, I make appearances on the Russ Clark Show, a local radio show with a national audience, once a week in the studio. One morning, after finishing the drive-time radio show, I walked out to my vehicle, ready to take on the rest of the day. As I approached my vehicle, I saw a Yuma City Police vehicle approaching in the parking lot of the radio station.

I opened my vehicle door and reached inside for a camera, as I thought pictures of such a police car might be useful for future articles. As I was half inside the vehicle, I noticed the police car pull up in front of me with the window rolled down. The officer said, “Are you Mr. Weingarten?” I said I was.

The Hughes Amendment was passed under dubious circumstances as part of the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986.  Second Amendment supporters, particularly in the NRA, had been working for years to reform the more odious overreach of the 1968 Gun Control Act. The leadership in the Congress, controlled by Democrats, was opposed, even though a majority of the Congress was willing to vote in the reforms.

The NRA was able to invoke a seldom used rule, a discharge petition. If a majority of House members would sign a petition to bring the reform bill to a vote, the leadership could be overruled.

Police who know of the Hughes Amendment are deep into the gun culture.

The Hughes Amendment has been interpreted to forbid sales of full-auto firearms to ordinary citizens if the firearms did not have a tax stamp prior to 1986, with some relatively minor and expensive exceptions (such as a license to manufacture).

I told the officer I was aware of the Hughes Amendment. I had listened to the original, crucial, and seeming underhanded vote in the House, and I would probably discuss it on the radio at some time.  It appears the vote was done legally if done with a dubious voice vote. Here is a video of the debate and the Amendment:

The officer assured me many officers were strong proponents of the Second Amendment and hated seeing infringements such as the Hughes Amendment.

Several police officers have communicated similar comments. They are a minority of officers, but they are not irrelevant. Some officers have complained of being used as political props during debates about Second Amendment issues, for example, being ordered to attend City Council meetings as a show of support when restrictive gun measures are being debated.

They are usually required, by their jobs, not to voice political opinions while on duty. Their politically appointed bosses, as police chiefs, are not so restricted. Police chief voices nearly universally reflect the political preferences of the politicians who hired or appointed them.

This is why it is much more common to see Sheriffs support the Second Amendment than police chiefs. Sheriffs are elected directly by the people. They are more accountable.