Gun grabber exploits product recall to advance semi-auto ban agenda

Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 28 October, 2010 | David Codrea

[marktwain]

“Gunmaker's 'Adaptive Combat Rifle' Too Combat-y: Fires Full Auto!” The Violence Policy Center’s Josh Sugarmann breathlessly warns Huffington Post readers.

When is a "combat rifle" for the U.S. civilian gun market too combat-y?

When it fires like a full-auto machine gun.

Batty invented terminology aside, he’s referring to a product recall notice issued by Bushmaster on Oct. 15 for its ACR rifle:

Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC has become aware of a possible firearms performance issue that may develop with a small number of ACR rifles and we are requesting you discontinue the sale of these firearms that remain in your inventory until appropriate action has been taken…

...During routine test firing, Bushmaster discovered a design flaw which could result in multiple rounds firing continuously when the trigger is pulled. This unexpected firing of multiple rounds creates a potential dangerous situation.

“In other words,” Sugarmann concludes in a triumphant “Gotcha!” moment, “they’re machine guns.”

-------------------cut-------------------------------

In the case of U.S. v. Olofson, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a machine gun transfer conviction for a malfunctioning semiautomatic rifle. As I observed in my July 2008 GUNS Magazine“Rights Watch” column:

It didn't matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer type. It didn't even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not important to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted today.

What mattered was the government's position that none of the above was relevant because "[T]here's no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it's a machine gun."

No matter what the cause.

[marktwain]

Federal firearms law is convoluted and silly in many cases. This is what happens when you have some lawmakers trying to circumvent the Constitution, and others trying to stop them. The resulting compromises make no sense.

[ontap]

Funny how not many politicians want their name associated with gun control anymore.

[OneWingedShark]

Oh, it’s not *JUST* lawmakers (the Legislature).
Let me direct you to the 1798 (yes, that *IS* Year of Our Lord One-Thousand Ninety-Eight) supreme court case Calder v. Bull:
(— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calder_v._Bull —)

In this case the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s plain-language prohibitions against Ex Post Facto laws (yes, the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws at BOTH Federal and State level) apply *ONLY* to criminal law.

This puts us firmly in the interesting position of the following:
1) Congress can pass retroactive tax laws, because they “aren’t criminal, but only regulatory in nature.”
2) Violations of those tax laws, even those passed retroactively, are prosecuted in CRIMINAL court.

Now, either the tax law are criminal or they are not; if they are criminal then by the Supreme Court’s own words such retroactive laws are invalid, but if they are not criminal then by what right are they tried in a criminal court?

BTW, it is my opinion that the Judicial branch is the most lawless and tyrannical of the governemnt’s branches.