What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? AZ
I've been pondering a fantasy case of a selective enforcement defense of criminal violations of the Hughes amendment/FOPA '86. As we know, Obama recently vacated federal immigration laws through presidential fiat by ordering DHS and its enforcement agencies to ignore said laws and release illegal aliens unless they've committed a serious crime, so the feds are selectively enforcing immigration laws. The Hughes amendment was shoved through congress in an unlawful manner, Video of the proceedings here: FOPA Hughes Amendment VOTE APRIL 10 1986 - YouTube
So the question would be could someone charged with possession of (under the Hughes amendment) an illegally manufactured machinegun use a selective enforcement defense? While NFA '34 would would likely be an obstacle, I'm curious if this type of defense may soften the 10 year/$250K penalty.
For those not entirely sure of what's going on in the video: Record Vote 73 was taken by electronic device; the result was: ayes 124, noes 298, not voting 12.[5] The Hughes Amendment regarding the banning of machine guns was defeated in Record Vote 73. The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75. Nevertheless, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill, which included the defeated Hughes Amendment.
Thanks!
I've been pondering a fantasy case of a selective enforcement defense of criminal violations of the Hughes amendment/FOPA '86. As we know, Obama recently vacated federal immigration laws through presidential fiat by ordering DHS and its enforcement agencies to ignore said laws and release illegal aliens unless they've committed a serious crime, so the feds are selectively enforcing immigration laws. The Hughes amendment was shoved through congress in an unlawful manner, Video of the proceedings here: FOPA Hughes Amendment VOTE APRIL 10 1986 - YouTube
So the question would be could someone charged with possession of (under the Hughes amendment) an illegally manufactured machinegun use a selective enforcement defense? While NFA '34 would would likely be an obstacle, I'm curious if this type of defense may soften the 10 year/$250K penalty.
For those not entirely sure of what's going on in the video: Record Vote 73 was taken by electronic device; the result was: ayes 124, noes 298, not voting 12.[5] The Hughes Amendment regarding the banning of machine guns was defeated in Record Vote 73. The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75. Nevertheless, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill, which included the defeated Hughes Amendment.
Thanks!