Quote:
|
He didn’t… his lawyer did.
|
Nope, HE did. We're talking about posts made by HIM on arfcom, telling about what HE intended to do and then about what HE did. And about what HE had done in his other federal trial.
It was clear that he felt he had things under control and that he was going to get the case thrown out. And this is KEY. NOT because the gun was defective and he was being railroaded, but rather because he was going to claim that the federal courts had no jurisdiction--just like he had in his previous federal trial.
Quote:
|
Mr. Olofson loaned the firearm to someone and it fired a three round burst.
|
No, it wasn't nearly that simple. The gun had M16 parts installed in it, including a 3 position selector, and showed evidence that other internal parts had been modified--filed down.
The person that Olofson transferred the gun to testified that Olofson told him that the third position on the selector was for full-auto fire and also that Olofson told him not to use that position.
There was a lot of misinformation floating around on the web, but the bottom line is that Olofson intentionally modified the rifle by installing parts on it that were, at the very least, of questionable legality. One can argue all day about how the BATF handled the functional testing, but the bottom line is that the gun looked like a duck (3 position selector), Olofson told the person receiving the gun it was a duck (that the third position was for full-auto), the person who received the gun said it quacked like a duck (fired a three shot burst) and the BATF, admittedly with some effort was able to demonstrate that it did quack like a duck (got it to fire more than once with a single trigger pull).
I'm certainly not saying it's the best work the BATF ever did, but it is totally inaccurate to imply that Olofson got convicted for having a broken gun. There was a LOT more to it than that, and if you delve into the details of the case a little, it will become painfully apparent.