|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 4, 2009, 06:57 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
The definition of a machine gun should not be an issue here because the weapon did not malfunction causing it to fire automatically. The weapon in question was clearly modified with parts from an M16 and that is what caused it to fire automatically.
Quote:
|
|
February 4, 2009, 07:02 PM | #27 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
If Olofson wanted to back up his claim, why didnt he subpoenae Oly Arms....even assuming it was relevant. WildaniwouldarguethatitwasnotAlaska ™ |
|
February 4, 2009, 07:07 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
Exactly! The reason this case was prosecuted is that he belongs to an extremist organization and he modified an AR15 to fire automatically.Th |
|
February 4, 2009, 07:11 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
And you are correct Olofson could have subpeonaed Olympic Arms. I suspect he didn't because the testimony that would have been presented would not have supported his case. |
|
February 4, 2009, 08:32 PM | #30 | |||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
The definition of machinegun is at issue because the Staples definition excludes weapons that fire automatically due to slamfires, cooking off, etc. (regardless of whether that is due to wear, excess heat or deliberate malfeasance). The statutory definition says that if a single pull of the trigger results in multiple rounds, that is a machinegun. You can see where that interpretation of the law might be problematic for law-abiding, responsible gun owners who have a cook-off, a slamfire, a rifle that doubles, etc. As for "clearly modified", the problem is that isn't so clear. Quote:
Quote:
The fact that Olofson was an anti-government wackjob is why I think the judge gave the prosecutor a lot of running room; but anti-government wackjobs have the same rights as us law-abiding, responsible gun owners. If they don't get their rights, then we shouldn't be surprised when we don't get ours in a similar situation. Personally, I think Olofson is going to jail regardless of how his appeal plays out. Unless GOA talks the Court of Appeals into using the Staples definition (unlikely in my view), none of those items are likely to change the outcome of the case - but it will establish protections for the rest of us. |
|||
February 4, 2009, 08:42 PM | #31 | |||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then rest of your analysis is pure reaching...forget about the gunwoobie and look at it from a legal point of view In point of fact, innocent folks dont get picked on very often, if at all...the Gov't has real baddies to chase WildundertheradarAlaska ™ |
|||
February 4, 2009, 08:50 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Some builders will use F/A bolt carriers, usually as an option. However, the bolt carrier itself really isn't a part that the ATF is concerned with; they are far more concerned about the parts of the fire control group (trigger, hammer, disconnector, selector, and auto sear if present).
Makers have gotten far more stringent about selling F/A fire control parts, but will sell a F/A bolt carrier without batting an eye. |
February 4, 2009, 09:07 PM | #33 | ||||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
In any case, my point was that this was an FFL. Does your average gunowner know or care whether it came from the factory like that or was modified by the FFL? Is there any significant difference to them and is that relevant to whether they "knowingly transferred a machinegun." Further, if the Oly/ATF letter isn't exculpatory but confirms what the prosecution already knows, why not share it? Quote:
Not to mention that more than one case has seen a U. S. Attorney withhold information helpful to the defense at trial and then later argue on appeal that the information did not reach the standard of exculpatory evidence required by Brady. Tell me, what valid reason could the prosecutor have to not want to share this letter? Under what circumstance should he not have to produce it? Quote:
|
||||
February 4, 2009, 09:13 PM | #34 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
|
Do some people never tire of spouting off about things they have no clue about? Do they never tire of repeating tired old innuendo when the facts are easily available to them? Do people never tire of being the worn-out old stereotype of the hysterical gun owner that cries "conspiracy" every time some jerk does something illegal and gets caught?
The gun DID NOT malfunction and cause it to fire multiple rounds. The gun HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY ALTERED for just that task. The man that altered it even informed the person borrowing it of this fact and warned him against using that setting. Give it a rest already and spend your time defending someone that is not a criminal for once. Last edited by Playboypenguin; February 4, 2009 at 11:21 PM. |
February 4, 2009, 09:18 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
February 4, 2009, 09:27 PM | #36 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
I am sure you know about US vs. Ted Stevens which is still pending. The District Judges hate to be reversed. They are extermely cognizant of Brady. I would defer to the expertise of the trial judge here. You are now grasping at the same straws as Olafoson's layers. Quote:
Let me ask you this. GunGuy buys an AR from FFL Joe. GunGuy shoots it and it runs full auto. If he goes right to the BATF and says, hey dudes, I bought this from FFL Joe and it runs full auto, you think Gunguy is getting indicted? No. Now the Feds go to FFL Joe and say, hey you sold this gun to Gunguy and it went full auto, whats the scoop. FFL Joe says, hey wait look at my books, I bought this from Militia Patriot AR Inc, came in yesterday and then sold it to Gun Guy...you think they are gonna screw with FFL Joe? Not. They want the real big fish... Now lets change the facts a bit. They go to FFL Joe and he has bins of M16 parts, conversion manuals, has a prior record, has militia pamphlets on the walls and emails talking about ZOG and suchlike and when they ask him about it he starts singing various contradictory tunes..... Guess what: US vs Olafson. Criminal investigation is not a TV show. it is a careful process where every i must be dotted and t must be crossed or some slimy defense lawyer gets the baddie off. And for you, by the way, to imply that federal Public defenders are incompetant is beyond beleif...try to get a job as one...and they have forgotten more about Federal criminal cases after one year on the job than you or I will ever know. Olafson is not a martyr to the evil minions of the JBT ZOGites. Based on whats adduced so far, he is a criminal. I will say no more till the Circuit renders it's decision. You guys can continue the ifwhenmaybebuts as long as you want WildverytrulyyoursAlaska ™ |
||
February 4, 2009, 09:40 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
If Olofson prevails all a person would have to do is modify a weapon so that it fires automatically by "malfunction" meaning its not a machine gun. To me there is a difference between a malfunction and modifications that intended to cause something. |
|
February 4, 2009, 10:55 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
That hasn't happened for a while, as far as I know, and when it did, it involved relatively few agents. But it happened none the less. However, under the new administration, who, with a straight face, could say it can't start happening again. Eric Holder makes Janet Reno look like Shirley Temple. |
|
February 4, 2009, 11:17 PM | #39 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Read my post again. manufacture. decent. law abiding. I'll agree with you that the ATF and the government shouldnt be trusted because of isolated incidents when you agree gun owners shouldnt be trusted due to isloated incidents. Same logic. WildbutwedigressAlaska TM |
|
February 4, 2009, 11:26 PM | #40 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Thanks everyone for your responses to my questions... That's kinda what I thought.
The problem I have been having is self-caused. I migrated from version 9.3 of Suse linux to version 11.0 (last Sept), and in the process some of my PDF's were lost. Specifically, the PDFs relating to the Olofson case. So while I thought I new what was what, I no longer had the data or urls to the data to back up my thinking (don't we all love upgrades?). Now, after reading the very educational (and for me, entertaining) posts after my questions, I can safely say (again), That Olofson is a crook and that he knew he was a crook. However, I am in agreement that the statutory definition is at odds with Staples. This is a case where case law should prevail over the strict statutory reading. |
February 4, 2009, 11:58 PM | #41 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
"Appellant claims that the lower Court erred in failing to charge that a malfunctioning firearm is not a machine gun as set forth in US vs Staples. We need not reach this issue, since the evidence that the defendant knowingly modified the firearm was overwhelming" WildorsuchlikeAlaska TM |
|
February 5, 2009, 12:47 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember a competative shooter who was charged with owning an unregistered machinegun because his FAL would fire more than one shot with each pull of the trigger. When it was later shown that this was due to a worn/broken part rather than intentional modification and also shown that the ATF officer in question had to do a lot of 'fiddling' with the rifle to get the offensive effect, the shooter was either acquited or the charges were dropped. If I'm remembering right, wouldn't this set a precident that the gov't would have to prove that the weapon had been knowingly modified into an unregistered machinegun?
|
February 5, 2009, 01:58 AM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
There are people who can't be trusted with guns and Federal agencies have, in the past, abused the rights of citizens in some instances. That doesn't seem like an equal equation to me. We both agree they have more important things to worry about than stacking the deck against citizens. The odds of it staying that way don't improve under the current administration. |
|
February 5, 2009, 02:32 AM | #44 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
As to the rest, you can bicker with yourself WildihavethreeshirotansinmytruckAlaska TM |
|
February 5, 2009, 02:36 AM | #45 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 25,005
|
I read through a VERY long thread on Arfcom in which the defendant posted extensively.
The gist of his planned defense was to claim that the federal government had no jurisdiction in the case. It seems that he had little or no interest in trying to prove that the gun was actually legal... I lost interest in the case after that.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
February 5, 2009, 04:59 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
Looks like the Federal LE community feels the same way, since Federal LE has earned the respect, once again, of most of us--including me. A case like this can be precedent setting, and, as some have already pointed out, certain strategies have been challenged by the defense as being irrellevent to the case and could, if unchallenged, be used against the rest of us by a less than gun-friendly administration---just in case we get one some day. You take care, Wildalaska. Be careful of that midnight sun stroke. |
|
February 5, 2009, 09:11 AM | #47 | |||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
My concern with your argument Ken, is that you seem to feel it is OK to deny Olofson these things because he is a bad guy and plainly guilty and that when a good guy comes up, it will be so obvious he is a good guy that there is no way he will get charged - and if he does get charged, he will get all these things that Olofson didn't because he isn't a "gunwoobie" (whatever that might be). Now, let me give you a nice real life example. One of the rifles we built as college students/FFLs was a $1500 "custom" Varminting AR. This was before the Internet when you could have learned that giving $1500 to two college students to build an AR from $500 of Nesard parts was probably not going to end well. We set up the AR and polished that trigger nice and bright. A little later, the guy swaps the varminting upper with a 16" carbine upper (complete with semi-auto carrier) and the thing starts firing in bursts. Unlike Olofson, he was unhappy with this and brought it back to us in a state of much disgust and we fixed the problem by replacing the trigger group with AR15 parts (this is when we first learned there was even a difference between AR15 and M16 parts). However, let's suppose the guy keeps it in his safe for a few years, sells it in a private sale and ten years later (after my buddy the FFL was long out of business despite our two years of business expertise) somebody else puts a 16" upper with semi-auto bolt carrier on it and the rifle begins to malfunction. The rifle has an M16 hammer and trigger in it. Suppose the guy decides to take it to a gunsmith to get it fixed; but he procrastinates and before he takes it to the gunsmith, his ex-wife tips off the ATF to gain the upper hand in a child-custody squabble. This certainly isn't Olofson; but you can bet that the law established by Olofson is going to have a big effect on our hypothetical gun owner. I am not as confident as you are that the AUSA is going to be able to distinguish the differences in these two cases when deciding whether to file charges. I would like to see our hypothetical gun owner be able to have the government produce evidence that is helpful to his case. I'd also like to see him have his expert in the room as well. I think Olofson is important because it is a perfect case where the Government can establish these protections as precedent and still be relatively confident that the bad guy is not going to walk. Quote:
Short summary for those who can't be bothered to read anything longer than five lines (*cough* Playboy Penguin *cough*) before typing a response that completely misses the points they skipped over in their haste to be heard: 1. Yes, Olofson is likely guilty. I have never seen any manufacturer ship with an M16 safety and disconnector. 2. Regardless of his guilt, he should still get to demand the letter between ATF and Olympic concerning his case because if he doesn't get that privilege, we will not either. 3. Regardless of his guilt, he should still get to have his expert witness present during the government's expert witness testimony for the same reason. 4. The current statutory definition of machineguns has a big gray area when it comes to malfunctioning semi-automatic firearms. The Staples definition resolves that problem; but creates a new one with regards to the creatively stupid. |
|||
February 5, 2009, 11:02 AM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Bart, I think your four point summary pretty well sums it up. At the same time, there's a lesson in there for us- if you have a firearm that has worn/broken parts and is doubling, get it fixed immediately!!! Sure, I am not convinced that the ATF is hiding behind a bush waiting to jump out and ensnare otherwise perfectly law abiding people, but if they have some reason to want some leverage over you (Koresh, Weaver), they WILL use it. I can't think of any good reason to not take immediate steps to fix a sick gun. If nothing else, tear it down and trash the bad parts (if for some reason you can't get it fixed pronto). Continuing to shoot such a malfunctioning firearm and seeming to take joy in that status is likely to be used against you.
|
February 5, 2009, 01:23 PM | #49 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
Olafson COULD HAVE subpoenaed Oly. He didnt. I suspect that was because they wouldnt have supported his allegation. As to the expert, I suspect the same issue as I raised above. WildallstrawmenfromaconvictedfelonAlaska ™ |
|
February 5, 2009, 01:25 PM | #50 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Quote:
WildcommonsenseAlaska ™ |
|
|
|