View Full Version : Felony Conviction for Malfunctioning AR
Many of you remember the ongoing saga of the man tried for and convicted of transferring a machine gun after an AR-15 he loaned to someone malfunctioned. (He has on ongoing thread on arfcom.)
CNN's Lou Dobbs has picked up the story.
Videos, parts 1 and 2:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/03/13/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn?iref=videosearch
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/14/tucker.government.guns.part.2.cnn
I think this is something we all should follow, not only because of our status as gun owners in this country, but also due to the ramifications of having an AR malfunction.
If we can keep this thread civil and free from drama, I'd appreciate it. I think we can all benefit from being aware of this, and getting the thread locked won't help.
Mark
Detective_D
03-15-08, 10:05
I really cant see the rationale of prosecuting someone based on something that has obviously been tested and found to be a malfunction.
If the gun was not made with the intention of being an automatic, then it is not an automatic. I feel bad for the guy but also believe the justice system will right itself when it gets apealed.
That's totally disturbing. I hadn't heard this, thanks for posting it.
All I can say is, there has to be more to the story. Whether the motivations were pure or malicious, the Wisconsin ATF office clearly wanted to prosecute this guy.
Presumably, the rifle was tested by the examiners at the ATF Technology Branch in West Virginia. I've been to their facility and met with most of the examiners. There are no anti-gun zealots there. In fact, most of the guys are very enthusiastic gun owners and collectors themselves.
If this case gets upheld, it signals a sea change in firearms law. I can't even estimate the number of guns I've seen double on the range over the years. I've had it happen to one of my own pistols ... though I won't say when that happened until I check what the statute of limitations is now! It's ludicrous to suggest that normal (or even abnormal) wear and tear on a gun's internals suddenly transforms the owner into a felon.
As an aside ... two thumbs up for Lou Dobbs and his enthusiastic public support of the Second Amendment on primetime CNN.
Gutshot John
03-15-08, 10:42
I'm sure there's more to the story, but does that make it right?
I'm more and more skeptical of giving Federal regulatory bodies the benefit of the doubt...especially given the idiotic, small-minded bureaucratic chickens$#^ that they're capable of.
If we can keep this thread civil and free from drama, I'd appreciate it. I think we can all benefit from being aware of this, and getting the thread locked won't help.
Mark
At first I found it premature that you wrote this. But now, after watching the clip, I see where the problem could start. This almost beyond belief, just horrible. Actually, it is beyond belief.
Even worse, this happened to me at a range with an AR I owned in the mid-90's. It was my first AR, and I bought it in a Pennsylvania gun store when I lived in PA then. It was a used, CAR configuration parts gun (only remember who made the upper now, won't mention their name here), and all I knew then is that it looked good on the rack and was what I thought I wanted. Believe it was $600 then.
This gun locked into full auto on me on at least four occasions, mostly at a private location, before I realized the severity of the issue. Sometimes 10 rounds at a time, and like an idiot I just let it go until it stopped, enjoying the burst. I sold it to another store, but adamantly told the dealer that the gun could go full auto and needed to be checked out before being re-sold. He assured me it would be, but seemed skeptical.
That said, even then I would not have expected the wrath that this man is getting if I would have been so very unfortunate to have been singled out at the range. I did not buy a class III. It shot right 99% of the time, and back then at 23 or so I really did not know how severe a malfunction it was anyway. It is clearly something that can accidentally happen, as I know first hand. Almost like a car accelerator sticking, very unlikely but possible. An unintended, unlikely accident.
Since I am not an armorer, can anyone here tell me what likely happened to my weapon?
I'm more and more skeptical of giving Federal regulatory bodies the benefit of the doubt...especially given the idiotic, small-minded bureaucratic chickens$#^ that they're capable of.
Thats kind of funny because I feel the same way... Especially about private citizens who want a real M4A1 carbine so bad that they change out all the parts they can with real M4 parts and end up with an illegal machine gun or short barreled rifle and then say "Gee, it was an accident, I didn't know" when they get caught...
But hey... Thats just me...
Buck
Gutshot John
03-15-08, 11:02
Thats kind of funny because I feel the same way... Especially about private citizens who want a real M4A1 carbine so bad that they change out all the parts they can with real M4 parts and end up with an illegal machine gun or short barreled rifle and then say "Gee, it was an accident, I didn't know" when they get caught...
But hey... Thats just me...
Buck
No that's fair. There's no excuse for breaking the law, but on some level that he broke the law was the arbitrary decision of some government bureaucrat with an axe to grind is disturbing, especially absent intent (malice).
All I can say is, there has to be more to the story. Whether the motivations were pure or malicious, the Wisconsin ATF office clearly wanted to prosecute this guy.
Mr. Olofson has been extremely open about developing events, backstory, court proceedings, etc., in the thread here (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483).
I'm sure there's more to the story, but does that make it right?
Without getting into mad speculation, I'm actually thinking more along the lines of "more to the story" in a bad, inappropriate way on the part of the agents or prosecutors. Could it go the other way? Sure, and I can certainly imagine scenarios along those lines. But given the facts before us so far, especially coming from CNN (not exactly NRA TV), it sure does seem like someone had an egg up their butt to get this guy.
I read this before the weapon did malfunction on TRI-BURST :eek: a tri-burst was put in the gun and he loaned the weapon to a friend for months,now did the friend put the parts in????who knows but the gun was illegal.it was not just parts being worn it was parts that was not suppose to be there in the first place.he was not just a joe sixpack whos gun malfunction,it had M-16 parts enough to cause a burst. the guy that was caught with it stated he was told not to put it on the 3rd safety selector as it would fire.but he blasted it on the range a few times before he was asked to see the weapon in question.he is going to club fed
At first I found it premature that you wrote [the request to keep the thread civil and free from drama]...
Well, the thread's subject is fairly volatile.
Folks could slip into arguments about second guessing the guy's actions, the value/integrity of the ATF, other gun forums, etc.
There's a place for those opinions, but sometimes folks go immature and start arguing, bashing, etc. If that happens, and the thread gets locked, fewer of us will get informed about this evolving case law that could impact all of us.
Hopefully the mods & staff can nip any shenanigans in the bud and keep the thread open.
Mark
Well, the thread's subject is fairly volatile.
Folks could slip into arguments about second guessing the guy's actions, the value/integrity of the ATF, other gun forums, etc.
There's a place for those opinions, but sometimes folks go immature and start arguing, bashing, etc. If that happens, and the thread gets locked, fewer of us will get informed about this evolving case law that could impact all of us.
Hopefully the mods & staff can nip any shenanigans in the bud and keep the thread open.
Mark+1 good call
Gutshot John
03-15-08, 11:53
Without getting into mad speculation, I'm actually thinking more along the lines of "more to the story" in a bad, inappropriate way on the part of the agents or prosecutors. Could it go the other way? Sure, and I can certainly imagine scenarios along those lines. But given the facts before us so far, especially coming from CNN (not exactly NRA TV), it sure does seem like someone had an egg up their butt to get this guy.
Oh I see. Yes....gotta love prosecutorial "discretion."
I read this before the weapon did malfunction on TRI-BURST :eek: a tri-burst was put in the gun and he loaned the weapon to a friend for months,now did the friend put the parts in????who knows but the gun was illegal.it was not just parts being worn it was parts that was not suppose to be there in the first place.he was not just a joe sixpack whos gun malfunction,it had M-16 parts enough to cause a burst. the guy that was caught with it stated he was told not to put it on the 3rd safety selector as it would fire.but he blasted it on the range a few times before he was asked to see the weapon in question.he is going to club fed
Based on what I've read (I'm no lawyer), the prosecuation seemed to be saying "Simple malfunction or not, more than one round firing with one pull of the trigger means this is a machine gun. How it was manufactured or modified is irrelevant." Seems the judge & jury bought that line of reasoning.
Lets look at this in a broader view...
If this was simply a matter of a worn out Olympic arms AR with all semi auto parts occasionally slip firing there would be no crime and we would not be here...
But this is a case where an 18 year old gets caught at a public range firing full auto bursts with a modified Olympic arms AR that has a M16A2 three round burst lower parts kit installed, and the selector rotates to all three positions, we have a problem... When the 18 year old is arrested and questioned he says, I'm a big dummy, I don't own any guns, I'm not sure how they work, i just borrowed it from this other older guy and he told me not to switch it to the third position...
And then you look into this other older guy and he is in the firearms business and has assembled several ARs from kits and even arranged group buys of AR kits for others, then you ask your self...
Self you say... I'm sworn to up hold the law, and I'm trying to do the right thing... I am holding in my hands an illegal unregistered machinegun... Who do i believe made it??? The 18 year old high school senior who was caught with it, or the older firearms enthusiast who assembled it from parts, that he borrowed it from???
The only question at this point is who made it and how do we prove it in court... And in the minds of the investigators, one of those questions has already been answered...
Edit--- Actually since he was convicted in federal court... both questions have been answered...
Lets look at this in a broader view...
If this was simply a matter of a worn out Olympic arms AR with all semi auto parts occasionally slip firing there would be no crime and we would not be here...
But this is a case where an 18 year old gets caught at a public range firing full auto bursts with a modified Olympic arms AR that has a M16A2 three round burst lower parts kit installed, and the selector rotates to all three positions, we have a problem... When the 18 year old is arrested and questioned he says, I'm a big dummy, I don't own any guns, I'm not sure how they work, i just borrowed it from this other older guy and he told me not to switch it to the third position...
And then you look into this other older guy and he is in the firearms business and has assembled several ARs from kits and even arranged group buys of AR kits for others, then you ask your self...
Self you say... I'm sworn to up hold the law, and I'm trying to do the right thing... I am holding in my hands an illegal unregistered machinegun... Who do i believe made it??? The 18 year old high school senior who was caught with it, or the older firearms enthusiast who assembled it from parts, that he borrowed it from???
The only question at this point is who made it and how do we prove it in court... And in the minds of the investigators, one of those questions has already been answered...you hit the nail on the head the selector and M-16A2 burst group was present. not just a worn disconnetor which could be replaced and the weapon would function in semi only.it was a Illegal machine gun, it didn't say if the receiver was drilled for a sear or a drop in sear was used to bad no pictures are up for us to see
Don Robison
03-15-08, 12:16
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s69/Donr101395/complaint_1.jpg
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s69/Donr101395/complaint_2.jpg
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s69/Donr101395/complaint_3.jpg
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s69/Donr101395/complaint_4.jpg
http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s69/Donr101395/complaint_5.jpg
Seth Harness
03-15-08, 12:35
"A man deservse a lot better from his government" ... If he's innocent, sure.
posted document
Yep, that document and several others are posted in the thread to which I linked.
Wisely or not, he's been very quick to post many of the documents from the case.
Well Donr101395, that changes things a bit. :confused:
Not at all what was stated in the CNN story as far as the selector switch and pin.
Well Donr101395, that changes things a bit. :confused:
Not at all what was stated in the CNN story as far as the selector switch and pin.
I think this story has been posted in here before, but after reading through the posted documents, I have to say that Olofson's innocence is questionable at best. If he truly did install a M16A2 three round burst lower parts kit in that rifle, and then subsequently loaned it out, I don't see how he could have much of a defense.
I don't see how he could have much of a defense.
Apparently the jury did not think so either...
the1911fan
03-15-08, 17:32
Apparently the jury did not think so either...
Facts have a way doing that to Jurors
Well Donr101395, that changes things a bit. :confused:
How so?
That document was posted by Olofson from the beginning.
Lets look at this in a broader view...
If this was simply a matter of a worn out Olympic arms AR with all semi auto parts occasionally slip firing there would be no crime and we would not be here...
But this is a case where an 18 year old gets caught at a public range firing full auto bursts with a modified Olympic arms AR that has a M16A2 three round burst lower parts kit installed, and the selector rotates to all three positions, we have a problem... When the 18 year old is arrested and questioned he says, I'm a big dummy, I don't own any guns, I'm not sure how they work, i just borrowed it from this other older guy and he told me not to switch it to the third position...
And then you look into this other older guy and he is in the firearms business and has assembled several ARs from kits and even arranged group buys of AR kits for others, then you ask your self...
Self you say... I'm sworn to up hold the law, and I'm trying to do the right thing... I am holding in my hands an illegal unregistered machinegun... Who do i believe made it??? The 18 year old high school senior who was caught with it, or the older firearms enthusiast who assembled it from parts, that he borrowed it from???
The only question at this point is who made it and how do we prove it in court... And in the minds of the investigators, one of those questions has already been answered...
Edit--- Actually since he was convicted in federal court... both questions have been answered...
I don't consider that the broader view. I consider the broader view the fact that the ATF successfully prosecuted a case on the premise that a semi-automatic rifle with an intermittant malfunction is a machine gun.
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with your two hypotheticals...
The first isn't applicable because the Olympic AR was never said to have all semi auto parts, thus the repeated references to early Olympic ARs coming with 3-position selectors.
The second isn't applicable because there's scant evidence the Olympic AR was modified.
I think this story has been posted in here before, but after reading through the posted documents, I have to say that Olofson's innocence is questionable at best. If he truly did install a M16A2 three round burst lower parts kit in that rifle, and then subsequently loaned it out, I don't see how he could have much of a defense.
I haven't seen anyone (other than some troll in the arfcom thread) state that Olofson installed M-16 parts in the gun.
ATF successfully prosecuted a case on the premise that a semi-automatic rifle with an intermittant malfunction is a machine gun.
It was not a malfunction, the m16 parts that were installed functioned as designed...
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with your two hypotheticals...
The first isn't applicable because the Olympic AR was never said to have all semi auto parts, thus the repeated references to early Olympic ARs coming with 3-position selectors.
The second isn't applicable because there's scant evidence the Olympic AR was modified.
Well lets see:
1) According to the Olympic Arms website that serial number was produced in 1990... During that time the selector notches on Olympic receivers were not even milled on the auto side, so the receiver would have to be modified to even allow a m16 selector rotate to the third position... And Olympic ARs made during that time frame also came from the factory with semi only internals...
2) Also the dummy stated that he had replaced all the internals with ones that he purchased from DPMS when the original ones wore out... And a semi selector will not rotate into the auto position, even in a real M-16...
3) When confronted with the internals by the ATF in court the dummy then states that someone must have modified my gun...
So with all that I feel safe in saying that it had full auto parts, likely purchased from DPMS, and now the dummy is crying on the nerd net looking for sympathy... I fully support the second amendment, but this is the wrong place to try to spin up support for a felon who made an illegal machine gun and got caught...
Buck
Thank you Buck, I was thinking the same thing but was struggling for a way to articulate it without causing drama. Having read the affidavit and even trying to read the thread he posted on TOS, I believe Buck's post was without a reasonable doubt, spot on.
It was not a malfunction, the m16 parts that were installed functioned as designed...
Well lets see:
1) According to the Olympic Arms website that serial number was produced in 1990... During that time the selector notches on Olympic receivers were not even milled on the auto side, so the receiver would have to be modified to even allow a m16 selector rotate to the third position... And Olympic ARs made during that time frame also came from the factory with semi only internals...
2) Also the dummy stated that he had replaced all the internals with ones that he purchased from DPMS when the original ones wore out... And a semi selector will not rotate into the auto position, even in a real M-16...
3) When confronted with the internals by the ATF in court the dummy then states that someone must have modified my gun...
So with all that I feel safe in saying that it had full auto parts, likely purchased from DPMS, and now the dummy is crying on the nerd net looking for sympathy... I fully support the second amendment, but this is the wrong place to try to spin up support for a felon who made an illegal machine gun and got caught...
Buck
Are you accusing me of "trying to spin up support" for this guy?
It was not a malfunction, the m16 parts that were installed functioned as designed...
1) According to the Olympic Arms website that serial number was produced in 1990... During that time the selector notches on Olympic receivers were not even milled on the auto side, so the receiver would have to be modified to even allow a m16 selector rotate to the third position... And Olympic ARs made during that time frame also came from the factory with semi only internals...
2) Also the dummy stated that he had replaced all the internals with ones that he purchased from DPMS when the original ones wore out... And a semi selector will not rotate into the auto position, even in a real M-16...
3) When confronted with the internals by the ATF in court the dummy then states that someone must have modified my gun...
Point #1 is good info... first time I recall reading that.
Points #2 and #3 are based on what Olofson claimed. Who knows where the truth lies regarding that; none of us know the guy and there's certainly unusual stuff going on with the gun.
Regarding whether or not it was a malfunction, there's plenty of evidence that it function as a semi-auto at least some of the time (enough that the ATF called it "not a machinegun"):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Soverign%20Stuff/57.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Soverign%20Stuff/58.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Soverign%20Stuff/59.jpg
My reason for this thread has nothing to do with Olofson's true guilt or innocence, but rather with the prosecution's approach. The prosecution's approach in this case, focusing on more than one shot with a pull of the trigger, regardless of why, and not all the time, appears to make any of us susceptible to prosecution for a malfunctioning gun. The reports of the ATF seeking sporting ammo vice milspec for its softer primers concerns me as well.
I've seen guns double. Heck, read threads on CMC and Timney AR triggers.
Again, I'm no lawyer, if someone can clearly explain why this is successful prosecution approach doesn't put me in jeopardy in the case of a malfunction, I'd appreciate it.
Again, I'm no lawyer, if someone can clearly explain why this is successful prosecution approach doesn't put me in jeopardy in the case of a malfunction, I'd appreciate it.
Let me try:
If you install a M-16 trigger, disconnector, hammer, and selector in your modified AR lower receiver, and pull the trigger, and it fires automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading, by a single function of the trigger; your in jeopardy...
I fully support the second amendment, but this is the wrong place to try to spin up support for a felon who made an illegal machine gun and got caught...
DrMark is not trying to spin up support for a convicted felon. In his first posted he questioned what legal ramifications could a malfunctioning AR have for any of us based on the prosecution's approach in this case.
Bolt_Overide
03-15-08, 21:31
I haven't seen anyone (other than some troll in the arfcom thread) state that Olofson installed M-16 parts in the gun.
yah dont be so quick with that crap, i had an old sp1 that would rock to the 3rd position, it didnt do anything when it got there, but 3 positions dont mean shit if you dont have an autosear.
Let me try:
If you install a M-16 trigger, disconnector, hammer, and selector in your modified AR lower receiver, and pull the trigger, and it fires automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading, by a single function of the trigger; your in jeopardy...
Except that the ATF weapons lab found it was NOT a machinegun by definition and stated such in the report. However, someone put M16 parts in the gun and it wasn't Olympic. If the guy wasn't guilty of transferring a machinegun he was certainly guilty of stupidity. The jury thought he was guilty...I hope they go easy on him at sentencing.
Glad to see we still have the guts to go after the real bad guys in this world.
BTW...
How many hookers was this prosecutor going through a month on the taxpayers dime?
I haven't seen anyone (other than some troll in the arfcom thread) state that Olofson installed M-16 parts in the gun.
I hope you aren't accusing me of being a troll, but more than one person in this thread has stated that he might have installed M16 parts in that gun. Notice I said "if" in my original statement. According to ATF agent Jody M. Keeku's affidavit "when the selector switch was placed in the unmarked third position, the firearm fired all twenty rounds automatically in each of the three tests."
Believe me, I am a huge supporter of the Second Amendment, and I don't want anything to jeopardize that right, whether that be some unjust ATF bureaucrat with a chip on his shoulder or some goofball gun enthusiast that puts parts in rifles that don't belong there. I understand that you are more concerned with the prosecution's approach rather than Olofson's true guilt or innocence, and that is something to be concerned about.
yah dont be so quick with that crap, i had an old sp1 that would rock to the 3rd position, it didnt do anything when it got there, but 3 positions dont mean shit if you dont have an autosear.
Are you directing that comment at me?
Here is a story CNN did on the subject. I was surprised to find Lou Dobbs is pro gun.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/03/13/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn
Bolt_Overide
03-16-08, 12:30
Are you directing that comment at me?
Thats directed at pretty much anyone who is quick to judge this whole situation based on the limited information available on a fairly complex situation.
I personally dont know if the guy is guilty or not, if he is, he got whats coming to him. If he isnt... well that sucks pretty hard.
I do find it interesting that the original test of the weapon it came back as not a machine gun...
I'm confused, ATF said it both was and wasn't a machinegun? Hrm...
Filed down the 'bolt'? What the hell?
Food for thought:
http://www.jpfo.org/media-sound/len-savage-01-10-08.mp3
I'm still thinking this one thru.
FWIW:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/ar_15_auto_sear_faq.txt
An AR-15 with an M-16 trigger,
disconnector, selector and either an M-16 bolt carrier or hammer
can be rigged to malfunction into firing more than one shot with a
single pull of the trigger, by having the hammer "follow" the bolt
carrier into battery, and fire a second round, rather than be
retained by the disconnector, as normally happens in a semi-
automatic AR-15 after one shot is fired, and the trigger remains
pulled. This will happen when the M16 selector is placed in the
full auto position, thus depressing the "tail" on the M16
disconnector, and removing it from engagement with the hammer. The
AR-15 hammer, unlike the M16 hammer, has a notch on the front face,
which is supposed to catch the ring or collar on the back of the
AR-15 firing pin, if the disconnector is disabled. The collar on
the AR-15 firing pin is larger than that on the M-16 firing pin,
for this purpose. The hammer notch will only catch the ring on the
AR-15 firing pin if an AR-15 style bolt carrier is also used, as
they have a ramp milled along the underside of the carrier for this
purpose; the M16 carrier, in addition to the sear trip surface,
also does not have this ramp milled. So the AR-15 hammer, bolt
carrier and firing pin are all required to prevent the hammer
follow down malfunction. This hammer follow down malfunction can
also be induced by physically removing the disconnector from the
firearm, if either an M-16 bolt carrier or M-16 hammer are also
used, and ATF has done just that, when the rifle lacked an M-16
disconnector, trigger or selector. Removing the disconnector
entirely is the same mechanically as putting the M-16 selector in
the full automatic position, when the gun also is assembled in
combination with an M-16 disconnector and trigger.
This hammer follow down malfunction is much more reliable if
handloaded ammunition is used, made with softer pistol primers,
rather than rifle primers. ATF has used .223 ammunition loaded
with softer than normal primers to make an AR-15 type rifle with no
auto sear fire more than one shot, in combination with inducing the
hammer follow down malfunction. This hammer follow down phenomenon
is really a malfunction, as it is possible for the rifle to fire
the cartridge before the action is locked, with potentially
disastrous consequences for both the rifle and the person firing
it.
DrMark's concern (and mine as well) is namely that: can a malfunctioning gun expose any of us here to legal action. Unfortuneately, I don't think any of us will probably know all the facts
of the this recently decided case.
What we need is a qualified armorer to address some of the points
made below. This is from the link I posted above concerning the legality of DIAS's.
In a March 11, 1986 memorandum, ATF made the following
observations on this phenomenon:
"The proposed draft ruling would hold that an AR15 type
rifle in combination with an M16 hammer, trigger,
disconnector, selector and bolt carrier is a combination of
parts from which a machine gun can be assembled and is a
machine gun if such rifle and parts are in the possession or
under control of a person. It would also hold that an AR15
type rifle in combination with any M16 part or parts (whether
assembled or unassembled) which, when assembled, shoots
automatically by manipulation of the selector or removal of
the disconnector is also a machine gun.
"The Bureau has determined not to issue the ruling at
this time...."
Reproduced in footnote 10, U.S. v. Staples, 971 F.2d 608 (CA10
1992), reversed on other grounds, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).
Rather than issue a formal ruling to this effect, and endanger
the "logic" of ATF Ruling 81-4, by acknowledging that the drop-in
auto sear can only really work to convert a firearm ATF also
considers to be a machine gun, ATF instead released this "open
letter" from Stephen E. Higgins, then director of ATF. The open
letter was printed in the fall, 1986, Federal Firearm Licensee News
publication. An edited version of this letter can be found in the
ATF "Yellow Book", "Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide",
ATF P 5300.4 (10-95) at page 91:
"I want to bring to your attention possible Gun Control
Act violations in which you could inadvertently become
involved.
"ATF has encountered various AR15-type assault rifles
such as those manufactured by Colt, E.A. Company, SGW, Sendra
and others, which have been assembled with internal components
designed for use in M16 machineguns. It has been found that
the vast majority of these rifles which have been assembled
with an M16 bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector and
selector will fire automatically merely by manipulation of the
selector or removal of the disconnector. Many of these rifles
using less than the five M16 parts listed above also will
shoot automatically by manipulation of the selector or removal
of the disconnector.
"It must be pointed out that any weapon which shoots
automatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading,
by a single function of the trigger is a machinegun as defined
in 26 U.S.C. Section 5845(b), the National Firearms Act (NFA).
In addition, the definition of a machinegun also includes any
combination of parts from which a machinegun may be assembled,
if such parts are in possession or under the control of a
person. Any machinegun is subject to the NFA and the
possession of an unregistered machinegun could subject the
possessor to criminal prosecution.
"Additionally, these rifles could pose a safety hazard in
that they may fire automatically without the user being aware that the weapon will fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.
"In order to avoid possible violations of the NFA, M16
hammers, triggers, disconnectors, selectors and bolt carriers
must not be used in assembly of AR15-type semiautomatic
rifles, unless the M16 parts have been modified to AR15 Model
SP1 configuration. Any AR15-type rifles which have been
assembled with M16 internal components should have those parts
removed and replaced with AR15 Model SP1 type parts. These
parts are available commercially or the M16 component may be
modified to AR15 Model SP1 configuration.
"It is important to note that any modification of the M16
parts should only be attempted by fully qualified personnel.
"On the following page are illustrations of AR15 Model
SP1 component parts and the corresponding M16-type parts.
Should you have any questions concerning AR15-type rifles with
M16 parts, please contact your nearest ATF law enforcement
office. Our telephone numbers are listed in the United States
Government section of your telephone directory under the
United States Treasury Department."
While ATF decided not to made a formal ruling to the effect
that an AR-15 type rifle with M-16 parts is a machine gun, they
can, almost certainly, get such a firearm to fire more than one
shot with a single pull of the trigger, and thus claim it is a
machine gun, on a case by case basis. (Consider this:
there is NOW proposed Legislation to make them follow a testing
STANDARD every time they test a weapon - me)
Reaction to this position has been mixed in the courts. In
United States v. Staples, 971 F.2d 608 (CA10 1992), reversed on
other grounds, 511 U.S. 600 (1994), both the trial court and court
of appeals rejected the theory that ATF had already decided that an
AR-15 rifle with M-16 parts, but no auto sear of any kind, was not
a machine gun, and permitted ATF to claim that the defendant's AR-
15 rifle, which ATF assembled with M-16 parts they found at the
defendant's house, was a machine gun. On the other hand, in the
case United States v. Corcoran, Judge Donald E. Zeigler said, in
explaining why he was dismissing 6 counts of possessing or
transferring unregistered machine guns:
"The AR-15's in this case were transferred by defendant
without automatic sears. The essence of due process of law
requires that the government make clear that conduct which
constitutes a crime. Here, the ATF ruled on November 1, 1981,
that an AR-15 with M-16 internal components already installed,
will convert to a machine gun with the single addition of an
automatic sear. It is inescapable that without the automatic
sear, the AR15 with M-16 components parts is not a machine gun
and need not be registered. If it did constitute a machine
gun, because it may fire more than one round with a single
function of the trigger, the agency was required to make that
clear in the Federal Firearms Regulations, especially in light
of ATF Ruling 81-4 effective November 1, 1981.
"In short, once Ruling 81-4 was made and published, the
agency was required to supplement that ruling to make clear
that conduct which was once legal, or at least arguably legal,
was now prohibited.
"In addition, the arguments that the agency did change
its policy, in letters to interested citizens after November
1, 1981, is without merit. The change must be published in
the same manner that the original ruling was published;
otherwise citizens who relied on Ruling 81-4 but did not
inquire of the government could be prosecuted for a crime
while other citizens could not."
United States v. Corcoran, Criminal No. 88-11 (W.D. Pa. April 5,
1988), transcript, pages 39-40.
The authors would like to thank Mr. Stephen P. Halbrook, PhD.,
Esq., for providing some of the ATF source material quoted in this
article.
I noted with great interest the multiple mentions of 'removing the disconnector'.
What I would like to hear ya or nay from a qualified armorer is: if a disconnector BREAKS in a lower that consists of PURELY SEMIAUTO FCG parts in the lower AND a FA BCG, can the rifle double? Because apparently if it doubles, you gots a machine gun son.
If the answer is YES, it would seem to me that that would have serious implications for EVERYONE here, regardless of how you feel about this particular guys case. I honestly can't tell one way or another WTF happened from the press accounts and the guys posts (allthou I will admit I was not up to reading all 48 pages at TOS today, nor most days). I DO note with interest thou that the guy in posession of the weapon was not charged with illegal possession nor was Olofson charged with manufacturing. If he dicked with the gun, then why not charge him?
NCPatrolAR
03-17-08, 03:52
IMO, this is more than a case of a malfunctioning gun. While the gun was infact malfunctioning, the owner was perfectly aware of this and made no steps to correct it. He further loaned the gun to others and made them aware of the malfunction and provided them with ammo that would induce the malfunction.
I have read claims that the owner / defendant did NOT put the tri-burst in the gun and that a the person who borrowed it before the person who got caught with it had it has substantiated that claim.
I have also heard claims that the ATF paid the person who got caught with the gun substantial money to testify after initially not making claims against the defendant. Ie, he was perhaps coached and persuaded to testify by the ATF.
Is there a good non-biased site that has good non-biased documented descriptions of exactly what happened? We have the documents posted that make the claims of the ATF through affidavits. But that does not mean the claims are true -- history is replete with officers making up testimony in order to convict.
How do we know the ATF, or someone there, did not happen to install these parts himself? That what the kid who got caught with it was not a story made up later?
Why there are affidavits from the ATF originally that it was not a machine gun and only after pressure from the field office were things retested, with changed parameters that hint at trying to predetermine the outcome, and it was found to be a machine gun.
I am trying to divorce the FUD from the FACTs. If the guy was stupid and made a machine gun or was messing around, then perhaps he deserves what he got. But if things have been messed around with by the ATF (manufacturing evidence, predetermining the test results, coercing and coaching witnesses, etc as some claim) then that needs to be determined and the appropriate ATF people prosecuted.
Chad
IMO, this is more than a case of a malfunctioning gun. While the gun was infact malfunctioning, the owner was perfectly aware of this and made no steps to correct it. He further loaned the gun to others and made them aware of the malfunction and provided them with ammo that would induce the malfunction.
From what I have I read, I would have to agree with you, at least somewhat. It would seem he was aware that it malfunctioned in the past. Maybe I missed it but did he ever state that nature of the malfunctions, either in public or in court? Or do we just have the kids word on that?
The kid apparently stated that he was told what the gun was capable of, and not to put the selector in the 3rd position. However, all we have is his word on that, the word of someone who was potentially in legal jeopardy for POSSESSING an unregistered Title II weapon.
I guess I missed the part about the ammo that you described. Do we know for a fact that he gave him ammo that would specifically allow the gun to slam fire?
Maybe I DO need to read all 48 pages of that crap on TOS. Please don't make me thou k? :o If so, would ya at least send me some Excedrin? I can barely tolerate that place anymore.
That still doesn't address mine or DrMark's ? thou: if anyone of us here has a gun the doubles as a result of a malfunction, are we in legal hot water for possessing an unregistered MG? Personally I would fix the sumbitch ASAP, before it blew my damn hand off from firing out of battery, however if someone sees it and I don't have the opportunity to do so before TSHTF :confused: See what I mean?
Imagine I go to local 'hack gunsmith' to get a trigger job on a 1911, and it goes FA on me. Should hack gunsmith go for felonies when he didn't INTEND to xfer/manufacture a MG? Should
I go for felonies for possessing?
I'm just what if'ing here.
And ya, loaning someone a gun that you doesn't work right, for whatever reason is well.....dumb :P
I find Items 7 and 8 in Keeku's afadavit to be a little problematic. #7 states that it was 'designed to fire a three round burst'. How was it 'designed' to do so, in the absence of an autosear? Also, if it was DESIGNED to do so as they state, why wasn't Oly ever prosecuted for Manufacturing/Transferring Illegal Title II weapons? If they designed it to fire burst,
you'd think someone would have prosecuted them by now?
In item #8 there is a mention of a an 'extra' pin to make it fire three round burst, and that the kid didn't want one in the gun he was going to eventually buy. What the hell is this extra 'pin' she is referring to?
Item #12: Olofson states that the selector did not work on the weapon
Item #16: Since when can you buy guns on EBAY?
NCPatrolAR
03-17-08, 04:22
Maybe I missed it but did he ever state that nature of the malfunctions, either in public or in court?
I do believe he admits to giving the kid ammo in the TOS thread. Tha thread is where I got my info on the case from.
That still doesn't address mine or DrMark's ? thou: if anyone of us here has a gun the doubles as a result of a malfunction, are we in legal hot water for possessing an unregistered MG? Personally I would fix the sumbitch ASAP, before it blew my damn hand off from firing out of battery, however if someone sees it and I don't have the opportunity to do so before TSHTF :confused: See what I mean?
If it is a legitmately malfunctioning gun and you arent keeping it that way because you view bump-firing as boring, then I would say that you wouldn't get in trouble. However when you have a gun that you KNOW is malfunctioning, but keep it in that manner and continue to shoot it and loan it out to others then I would say you might get in trouble. See this case as an example.
However when you have a gun that you KNOW is malfunctioning, but keep it in that manner and continue to shoot it and loan it out to others then I would say you might get in trouble. See this case as an example.
Rogo, I get ya man, believe me. IF someone offered to loan me a gun, and explicitly stated me that it was capable of firing in burst, I wouldn't even take it from them in the first place.
However, at the end of the day, all we have is the kids word as to what Olofoson told him, wouldn't you agree? A person who was potentially in legal jeopardy himself for possession.
BTW, I made some edits above. Parts of the affidavit bother me. The part about the 'pin' in #8 makes it sound like someone was coaching him about what to say. What is this magical pin that makes it fire in burst?
I do believe he admits to giving the kid ammo in the TOS thread. Tha thread is where I got my info on the case from.
Did he admit to giving him ammo that he knew would induce a slam fire situation when the selector was set to burst?
Can you PM me that Excedrin, because I think I'm going to have to go over to that damn place now and read all that crap, moonbats and all.
Maybe I DO need to read all 48 pages of that crap on TOS. Please don't make me thou k? :o If so, would ya at least send me some Excedrin? I can barely tolerate that place anymore.
Was there for a few minutes the other day, ran out fast. Now just lawless insanity.
Anyway, back on track, I had asked earlier in the thread what the possible cause of my old AR locking up into full auto several times was but received no response. I know there was no selector switch, but I can't verify everything inside because I bought it used and did not really know what to look for 15 years ago. But, it was purchased as a semi-auto and functioned as a semi-auto 99% of the time. If there is no auto sear (or selector switch), then how did I end up with up to 10 round "bursts"? I assume something wore out, but what?
The "law" is made, or "deemed" such that, if they want to get ya, they will get ya...
Why are we suprised by this?
I read this before the weapon did malfunction on TRI-BURST :eek: a tri-burst was put in the gun and he loaned the weapon to a friend for months,now did the friend put the parts in????who knows but the gun was illegal.it was not just parts being worn it was parts that was not suppose to be there in the first place.he was not just a joe sixpack whos gun malfunction,it had M-16 parts enough to cause a burst. the guy that was caught with it stated he was told not to put it on the 3rd safety selector as it would fire.but he blasted it on the range a few times before he was asked to see the weapon in question.he is going to club fed
That's not the way it went down, dude.
If you would take time to read the thread and the supporting evidence, you'd see that the ATF found this weapon not to be a MG. Then, the lead ATF A-hole said re-do the test with different ammo - ammo that was known to cause malfunctions. It was then the ATF was able to get the AR to fire 3, three round bursts.
The ATF has gone too far in this case and that's the issue at hand.
JP
they
The "law" is made, or "deemed" such that, if they want to get ya, they will get ya...
Why are we suprised by this?
Oh Phuleese... Take that tin foils shit elsewhere...
This is not a case of Innocent bystander caught up in a conspiracy....
This guy has had numerous run ins before in regards to CCW violations and Explosives. He put himself on there Radar..
And if you read you will see this guy specifically tells the 18 yr old whom he loaned out the AR to... Not to place the Selector switch in the third position and fire the gun.
I don't know about the rest of you.... but I have NEVER owned an AR where the selector switch could be moved to the "Third" position.
And I HAVE NEVER had to tell someone who was going to Shoot my AR.."Whatever you do.. don't fire the gun with the selector in the third position"
I have owned and fired many guns and I have NEVER had one Fire more then once with one pull of the trigger.
There trying hard to make this guy out to be Randy Weaver and wrapping him in the flag because he is a Guard member, which automatically makes him a small Arms Subject matter expert....NOT.
This guy got convicted by a jury of his peers..
I'm not gonna lose any sleep that one of my guns may "Malfunction" and get me a one way trip ticket to the Pen.
I got thru 8 pages at TOS, someone bring me that Excedrin now.
The guy is a moonbat. I read enough of his posts about 'subject matter jurisdiction', the 'corporate UNITED STATES', being a 'sovereign entity' and rapidly lost interest. He strikes me as one
of those types that was just itching to take on 'the man'.
Harv, I guess I'm not surprised to hear about the CCW/explosives thing, where did you hear that?
If any of my guns ever double, I'll just fix them and drive on. I don't think anyone here needs to worry about going to jail because of it. Unless you are dumb and leave them that way on purpose.
I'd like to see the transcripts of the trial, be interesting to say the least.
Watching CNN, looks like Lou Dobbs is going to have more to say at 1700 MST.
ETA: Looks like its about Heller, not the MG case.
they
Oh Phuleese... Take that tin foils shit elsewhere...
This is not a case of Innocent bystander caught up in a conspiracy....
This guy has had numerous run ins before in regards to CCW violations and Explosives. He put himself on there Radar..
And if you read you will see this guy specifically tells the 18 yr old whom he loaned out the AR to... Not to place the Selector switch in the third position and fire the gun.
I don't know about the rest of you.... but I have NEVER owned an AR where the selector switch could be moved to the "Third" position.
And I HAVE NEVER had to tell someone who was going to Shoot my AR.."Whatever you do.. don't fire the gun with the selector in the third position"
I have owned and fired many guns and I have NEVER had one Fire more then once with one pull of the trigger.
There trying hard to make this guy out to be Randy Weaver and wrapping him in the flag because he is a Guard member, which automatically makes him a small Arms Subject matter expert....NOT.
This guy got convicted by a jury of his peers..
I'm not gonna lose any sleep that one of my guns may "Malfunction" and get me a one way trip ticket to the Pen.
The gun in question was not able to fire in automatic with any consistency. As a matter of fact, as I said before, originally, the ATF found this weapon NOT to be a MG - they could not get it to fire in automatic. Then upon re-test with different ammo (ammo that is know to cause malfunctions) - they determined it was a MG.
If this gun was modified, why was it so tough to get it to fire in automatic?
Read the facts and then post up - moron.
The bottom line is the ATF is making up the rules as they go. They didn’t produce evidence and didn’t allow the defense to examine anything. They and the judge in this case went way over board to prosecute this case.
JP
Well, the thread's subject is fairly volatile.
Folks could slip into arguments about second guessing the guy's actions, the value/integrity of the ATF, other gun forums, etc.
There's a place for those opinions, but sometimes folks go immature and start arguing, bashing, etc. If that happens, and the thread gets locked, fewer of us will get informed about this evolving case law that could impact all of us.
Hopefully the mods & staff can nip any shenanigans in the bud and keep the thread open.
Mark
Please?
.
Please?
.
If this were TOS, there would have been a dozen of the "face apprehensively looking over the wall then ducking" icons posted in this thread by now.
:D
Please?
.
I concur. No need for name calling.
Chester
The gun in question was not able to fire in automatic with any consistency. As a matter of fact, as I said before, originally, the ATF found this weapon NOT to be a MG - they could not get it to fire in automatic. Then upon re-test with different ammo (ammo that is know to cause malfunctions) - they determined it was a MG.
If this gun was modified, why was it so tough to get it to fire in automatic?
Read the facts and then post up - moron.
The bottom line is the ATF is making up the rules as they go. They didn’t produce evidence and didn’t allow the defense to examine anything. They and the judge in this case went way over board to prosecute this case.
JP
Thank you.. you illustrate my point nicely...
Ignore all the guys actions leading up to his arrest.. it's the ATF and the Judge. and the Jury.. anyone else you would like to blame it on.....:rolleyes:
I don't really see the point in getting all worked up over this. I read a fair bit of his posts (skipping all the jurisdiction bantering), and his answers to questions about whether he converted the rifle and they were at the very least coy to down-right deceptive. Granted this was his public comments and maybe he was holding his cards close, but lacking a full transcript it's all we can go on.
Appears to me that he knew exactly what he was doing and did what most suspect him of doing. There is conventional wisdom, founded or not, on the internet that if you use any M16 parts in an AR-15 and it fires more than one shot, that it would be considered a machine gun. Everyone must know by now about slam firing on soft primers and how the carrier was modified to prevent hammer following. Every thread I've ran across that mentions the topic usually includes the ominous warnings about what testing tactics the BATF will use to prove their case. Apparently that wasn't all just the typical BS.
If you play with fire you're going to get burned, and everything I have read about this case leads me directly to believe that this guy was throwing matches on gasoline.
Well, MAYBE there was some useful info at TOS after all.
Well, I got emailed the transcript w/ Mr. Savage's testimony. I won't copy it all here; it's way too long. I did love this excerpt though, which occurred during a "sidebar" (Mr. Haanstad is the prosecutor, Mr. Fahl is the defense attorney):
Begin Excerpt
MR. HAANSTAD: (Interrupting) First of all, I'm not
sure if I understand why that's relevant, the hammer follow. I
mean, there's no indication that that's what was going on with
respect to this particular gun. And there's no indication that
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.
MR. FAHL: And that's where I think we have some
issues. The Staples case, footnote one Justice Thomas said you
have to -- you know, it has to go without stopping -- until then
-- and that was adopted by the 7th Circuit.
And under that jury instruction, if that one goes
through, you know, we'll have an issue about the hammer follow
and what happened with the three rounds and then stopping.
It definitely will go to knowledge.
MR. HAANSTAD: I kind of wonder if we should resolve
that before we sort of risk confusing the jury on an issue
that's not going to be of any significance in the case.
I mean, I've read Staples and I'm familiar with
footnote 1.
End Excerpt
For those of you who don't understand the significance, the USSC's Decision in Staples, Footnote 1 basically states that a malfunctioning semi-auto is not a machine gun; Haanstad is stating otherwise in court.
We we really need is the whole trial transcript I think. There are mentions on other boards that the .gov never alleged that the weapon was modified in anyway and that indeed the cause of the burst firing was from hammer follow, ie it was slam firing. There are also references to Oly issuing a recall letter ages ago about this very condition about this very malfunction.
At this point relying on what's been posted on the intardnet is perilous I think. We need the transcript of the trial.
Thank you.. you illustrate my point nicely...
Ignore all the guys actions leading up to his arrest.. it's the ATF and the Judge. and the Jury.. anyone else you would like to blame it on.....:rolleyes:
I'm not ignoring the actions of this guy. His actions do not point to anything radical or malicious. Frankly, his actions point to a fairly decent law abiding citizen.
I do know he was not a convicted felon, I also know that none of the guns ATF took from him were illegal and I also know he gave 16 years of his life defending this country. While that does not make him a saint, I'd say he is prolly a clean, law abiding citizen. Especially since ATF did not disclose any background dirt on this guy. I think if this guy had a record, we'd know about it. Don’t you think?
If this guy is guilty, then why does the ATF refuse to allow the defense to inspect the weapon and why did they originally state the gun was not a MG?
Of course, I'm not sure of all the facts of this case, but I doubt the ATF is on the up and up here and frankly, you, me and all the folks who own guns are against tall odds facing ANY jury in a case like this.
Someone on TFL is posting parts of the trail transcripts. I believe Mr. Kingery was the one who tested the weapon in question:
Some interesting quotes from testimony of Max Kingery
Q. Okay, and how long have you been with ATF?
A. About two and a half years.
Q. An FEO? Have you been an FEO that whole time?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. And what are your duties and responsibilities as an FEO?
A. As an FEO primarily we examine and classify items submitted to us as evidence. We also examine items submitted to technology branch by the firearms industry for classification.
Items that are being imported into the United States are evaluated for their importability. And we answer general firearms related questions to the public and to members of the Industry.
Q. How are you employed prior to working for ATF?
A. Prior to ATF I was a sergeant with the West Virginia State Police.
Q. And what types of firearms training did you receive before you came to ATF?
A. With the state police I was trained with the service side arm, and with the shotgun and carbines. I was also a sniper, so I'm a member of the sniper team.
Q. Okay. And have you received firearms training since joining ATF?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. And what kind of training is that?
A. I received training on the classification of firearms according to the Federal Firearms Guide. And I've attended several armors courses on a number of different types of firearms. Ammunition factory tours, ammunition training at those tours. Training on firearms nexus.
A. And I've written, I believe it's 15, possibly 16 what we call white papers -- Q. What are those?
A. -- on a number of different firearms. It's basically like a homework assignment of paper. The initial part of my position with ATF I was being trained on the job. And part of that training I had to write these papers on a number of different types of firearms. One of those was the AR-15 series of Firearms.
Q. Is your experience with the M-16 purely on a firing level or have you repaired or examined the gun through your training and experience in these other past endeavors?
A. In the past it was mainly usage. With the ATF it's been, it included repair, detailed examination, complete disassembly and Assembly.
Q. In your training and experience as an expert on AR-15 weapons, you're aware, of course, that many AR-15 weapons, especially those manufactured in the '80s, were manufactured with some M-16 internal parts?
A. I'm aware that some were, yes.
Q. Did you ever contact SGW/Olympic Arms about this particular rifle?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Are you aware that SGW has recalled this particular rifle?
A. No, sir.
based on your training, your
experience and your examination of Exhibit 1, is it possible that hammer follow was responsible for causing the firearm to fire automatically on those occasions?
A. As a malfunction or in --
Q. (Interrupting) Yeah, I'm sorry, there was malfunctioning in that way, and that's what was causing the firearm to fire fully automatic?
A. No, there was no malfunction of this firearm at all.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FAHL:
Q. I guess to be clear, is hammer follow a malfunction or not?
A. It can be. It was intended in this instance.
Q. Now, going to Mr. Haanstad's questions about firing three rounds and jamming. Why would somebody design a gun to fire three rounds and then jam, have to eject the bolt, start all over, fire three rounds, jam, and do that?
A. They would not do so, sir.
What Kingery SEEMS to be saying is that the hammer on this gun was following, and that it was INTENDED to do so. I wonder how he came to that conclusion.
Anyone here got a PACER login? :p
Useful things we could learn from the full trial transcript:
1. did the .gov allege that the weapon was modified in any way from its original configuration as made by Oly
2. if so, what was done to it to make the hammer following INTENTIONAL.
If nothing was done to the gun other than replace parts in it that were identical to the parts that Oly shipped the rifle with, then what Mr. Kingery
SEEMS to be saying is that Oly was shipping rifles that were INTENDED to be able to slam fire.
I think I finally get the 'filing the bolt' thing. IIRC Tweak told me ages ago that when he worked at Oly that they would file a part of the carrier OFF (the front of the sear trip ledge on the bottom of the carrier, to make it shorter like a semi carrier) so it would
NOT trip an autosear (they were using M16 carriers). In other words the parts were modified by Oly so they could NOT function in a FA weapon.
How does he know it was intended? Let me answer that, he doesn’t. He simply gave his opinion. In addition, it's clear this guy did no real investigation into the gun.
What BS.
Why that comment was not thrown out is beyond me.
I'd like to see the whole transcript; from the excerpt the defense attorney does not seem very aggressive.
The lesson from this debacle, and many others, is keep your shit to yourself, present an air of sober respectability, and don't attract the attention of LE unnecessarily.
Any other course of action is a crapshoot.
NCPatrolAR
03-18-08, 01:33
I would say the biggest lesson is to fix your firearms if they are malfunctioning and if you choose not to do so; dont loan them out.
I would say the biggest lesson is to fix your firearms if they are malfunctioning and if you choose not to do so; dont loan them out.
And avoid Oly and DPMS like the plague. But we allready knew that :p
NCPatrolAR
03-18-08, 03:16
And avoid Oly and DPMS like the plague. But we allready knew that :p
Oly pistol caliber uppers arent that bad. :D
OldNavyGuy
03-18-08, 08:29
DrMark,
(He has on ongoing thread on arfcom.) please excuse me if this has been posted/answered before but would you be so kind as to post a link to that thread ?
i rarely ever go there (and when i do it is for the for sale stuff) as i consider this forum to be far superior to that one, yes, i am new here but have lurked for over a year :D
My Mom called me all freaked out about this case. She saw the bit on CNN, and was worried that this could happen to me if one of my guns malfed. I had to look into this thread here to find out the guy wasn't as clean as the CNN reverse hit piece made him out to be.
DrMark,
(He has on ongoing thread on arfcom.) please excuse me if this has been posted/answered before but would you be so kind as to post a link to that thread ?
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483
they
Oh Phuleese... Take that tin foils shit elsewhere...This is not a case of Innocent bystander caught up in a conspiracy....This guy has had numerous run ins before in regards to CCW violations and Explosives. He put himself on there Radar..And if you read you will see this guy specifically tells the 18 yr old whom he loaned out the AR to... Not to place the Selector switch in the third position and fire the gun.I don't know about the rest of you.... but I have NEVER owned an AR where the selector switch could be moved to the "Third" position.And I HAVE NEVER had to tell someone who was going to Shoot my AR.."Whatever you do.. don't fire the gun with the selector in the third position" I have owned and fired many guns and I have NEVER had one Fire more then once with one pull of the trigger.There trying hard to make this guy out to be Randy Weaver and wrapping him in the flag because he is a Guard member, which automatically makes him a small Arms Subject matter expert....NOT. This guy got convicted by a jury of his peers..I'm not gonna lose any sleep that one of my guns may "Malfunction" and get me a one way trip ticket to the Pen.
Good post, Harv.
Adding... Anyone that thinks that BATFE agents are sitting in FOs waiting with bated breath for the next such case haven't worked with federal agencies much.
It can be downright difficult to get federal attention at times, unless you're case is the crime du jour, or you meet thresholds.
Don Robison
03-18-08, 09:43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harv View Post
they
Oh Phuleese... Take that tin foils shit elsewhere...This is not a case of Innocent bystander caught up in a conspiracy....This guy has had numerous run ins before in regards to CCW violations and Explosives. He put himself on there Radar..And if you read you will see this guy specifically tells the 18 yr old whom he loaned out the AR to... Not to place the Selector switch in the third position and fire the gun.I don't know about the rest of you.... but I have NEVER owned an AR where the selector switch could be moved to the "Third" position.And I HAVE NEVER had to tell someone who was going to Shoot my AR.."Whatever you do.. don't fire the gun with the selector in the third position" I have owned and fired many guns and I have NEVER had one Fire more then once with one pull of the trigger.There trying hard to make this guy out to be Randy Weaver and wrapping him in the flag because he is a Guard member, which automatically makes him a small Arms Subject matter expert....NOT. This guy got convicted by a jury of his peers..I'm not gonna lose any sleep that one of my guns may "Malfunction" and get me a one way trip ticket to the Pen.
Good post, Harv.
Adding... Anyone that thinks that BATFE agents are sitting in FOs waiting with bated breath for the next such case haven't worked with federal agencies much.
It can be downright difficult to get federal attention at times, unless you're case is the crime du jour, or you meet thresholds.
You guys have pretty much summed up my feelings about this guy and case as well. From the research I've done vs. the jpfo and news articles. This guy was an idiot got caught and now is crying about being punished for his stupidity. They keep harping that he's in the ANG and has 3 kids. Those two things don't make you innocent and he should have thought about them before he decided to be stupid.
There has been more than one goofball on TOS who posted his interest in a selector that would move to all three positions even though it did nothing.
Maybe those posers will think twice about that now.
Harv,
Whatever dude. I'm glad you've never had a malfunction...
The person in question may be an idiot, but that does not change THE FACT that the "law" is made so that a simple, unintentional malfunction can indeed land you in federal ass pounding prison.
Yet it is so simple to avoid crossing the "law" by just not installing an M16 LPK in your unregistered AR-15.
NCPatrolAR
03-18-08, 11:43
Harv,
Whatever dude. I'm glad you've never had a malfunction...
The person in question may be an idiot, but that does not change THE FACT that the "law" is made so that a simple, unintentional malfunction can indeed land you in federal ass pounding prison.
And this isnt a case of a single malfunction landing someone in prison.
I hate to admit it. But every time you want to hate on the Feds for popping someone on a gun violation... it turns out the dumb ass who got nailed was an idiot who was asking for it.
The real sad thing in this whole case (aside from the dummy who put burst components in a POS OLY) is that peoples' immediate reaction to the sound of automatic fire is to call the Police.
Chester
I'm not ignoring the actions of this guy. His actions do not point to anything radical or malicious. Frankly, his actions point to a fairly decent law abiding citizen.
I do know he was not a convicted felon, I also know that none of the guns ATF took from him were illegal and I also know he gave 16 years of his life defending this country. While that does not make him a saint, I'd say he is prolly a clean, law abiding citizen. Especially since ATF did not disclose any background dirt on this guy. I think if this guy had a record, we'd know about it. Don’t you think?
If this guy is guilty, then why does the ATF refuse to allow the defense to inspect the weapon and why did they originally state the gun was not a MG?
Of course, I'm not sure of all the facts of this case, but I doubt the ATF is on the up and up here and frankly, you, me and all the folks who own guns are against tall odds facing ANY jury in a case like this.
Chester,Chester... again you illustrate my point nicely...16 years in the National Guard has no bearing on the case and does not make him a "weapons Expert"
Lots of guys in jail who served in the Armed Forces...So don't wrap him in the Flag
As to Clean..
Go to the WI Court System web site and look him up.. over 19 court cases from 4 counties that go back to 95.
Tax Warrants
Carrying concealed weapons
Disorderly conduct
Contempt of court
Driving after revocation
Unregistered vehicle
numerous small claims court charges against him from various charges ..
While I give ya that he's no Dillinger.. he's hardly a stranger to the Judicial system.....
Law abiding citizens (at least the ones I know) follow the laws, we may not agree with all of them, but we don't break them just because we think the Constitution trumps everything else... You pay your taxes.. you register your car, you don't drive if you lose your license, you don't carry weapons concealed in a state that does not allow it. You pay people when you owe them. that's how it works.. at least how I was raised.
Is our system perfect??? not hardly.. Is the ATF in need of a overhaul???Yes...
But being your local Neighbor hood "John Adams" and showing a long history of Contempt for laws you don't agree with is not the way to do it.. and this is the result.
Harv, thanks for the info dump. I found the Court website.
Lou Dobbs kinda dropped the ball I think with his statement of 'no criminal record' when you and I can find it in 30 seconds.
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/pager.do;jsessionid=71564A57A1FF74770964ADFBFEA69F1E.render5?cacheId=2F102696BF948EEDCF011EFF0485E0CF&offset=0&sortColumn=0&sortDirection=DESC
CarlosDJackal
03-18-08, 22:13
Outside of the malfunction, I keep wondering what the guy who had borrowed the rifle did to garner so much attention in the first place?
FWIW:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/TMP144.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/TMP145.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/TMP146.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/TMP147.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/TMP148.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/TMP149.jpg
Now, while it might look on the surface that the guy pushed his luck on other issues in the past, I still find the possibility of 'arbitrary enforcement' to be problematic. I believe that is DrMark's concern as well, but I'd prefer that he speak for himself on that point.
Its interesting to note that a gun was removed from the NFA registry that had been specifically MODIFIED to allow slam firing, and it was was removed why? Because ATF ruled that it was NOT a machine gun. That particular bit of evidence was not shown to the judge do to a .gov claim that it would violate various privacy provisions of the Tax Code.
Regardless of how many years this guy has served his country he screwed up. There are plenty of child molesters, spies and murderers who have served their country, but that doesn't excuse their crimes.
This person is supposed to be a RKI when I comes to firearms, as many of us here are. When you install M16 fire control parts in a semi-auto M16 variant this is what can/ does happen, regardless of of whether or not there is an auto-sear. He should have known better. According to what I have seen here it looks as if he was playing with fire and then got burned.
If you knowingly loan a firearm to someone when it is malfunctioning not only are you an idiot but you leave yourself open for a potential lawsuit in the event that someone were to be hurt. I believe that he acted irresponsibly and there is probably more to the story than we will know.
I truly believe that had they examined his weapon and found standard AR type semi-auto FC parts in there it would have been a non-starter.
For what it's worth... the lack of the auto sear shouldn't be an excuse for this clown. As it has been posted here, the sear only "regulates" the auto fire. A hack conversion like this will still give you sloppy, intermittent auto fire if a collared carrier is in the gun.
Remember911
03-20-08, 17:03
Lou Dobbs for pres.
Lou did exactly get the whole story I don't think. See the above court cases the guy was involved in.
Remember911
03-20-08, 22:48
Must read long doc befor post next time my bad :rolleyes:
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/pager.do;jsessionid=71564A57A1FF74770964ADFBFEA69F1E.render5?cacheId=2F102696BF948EEDCF011EFF0485E0CF&offset=0&sortColumn=0&sortDirection=DESC
That's what I was referring to for clarification.
Lou Dobbs neglected to mention any of this.
Now, not that I think that anything you will find there exactly makes the guy the antichrist, but Lou should have been more dilligent I think.
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/pager.do;jsessionid=71564A57A1FF74770964ADFBFEA69F1E.render5?cacheId=2F102696BF948EEDCF011EFF0485E0CF&offset=0&sortColumn=0&sortDirection=DESC
That's what I was referring to for clarification.
Lou Dobbs neglected to mention any of this.
Now, not that I think that anything you will find there exactly makes the guy the antichrist, but Lou should have been more dilligent I think.
The link gives an error of page not found. Can you describe what you did to get the results you were hoping to share?
Sure, apparently the query expires after a certain period of time, hence you have to research.
Conviction on Disorderly Conduct
Conviction on Carrying on Concealed Weapon
5 Pending Tax Cases it looks like
And multiple civil judgements
As I said, I don't think he's Ted Bundy, but Dobbs assertion that he has no criminal record was incorrect.
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/simpleCaseSearch.xsl;jsessionid=FFD49CD5B554254521448EFA18507D08.render5
Try that, and you should be able to run the search yourself for "David R. Olofson".
In my LIMITED understanding of a somewhat similar case, USA v. Stapes, there IS an INTENT requirement to prove the offense at hand. Now whether or not that precedent was followed in THIS case, I don't know. That's why I'd like to see a full transcript, and see if intent was even discussed or proven more importantly.
Some have said the AUSA threw intent under the bus and took the position that even a malfunctioning gun is a 'machinegun', I'd like to see what he said court before passing judgement on that particular 'fact'.
Staples Case:
Staples v. United States
511 U.S. 600
Supreme Court of the United States, 1994
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. The National Firearms Act makes it unlawful for any person to possess a machinegun that is not properly registered with the Federal Government. Petitioner contends that, to convict him under the Act, the Government should have been required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the weapon he possessed had the characteristics that brought it within the statutory definition of a machinegun. We agree and accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The National Firearms Act (Act) imposes strict registration requirements on statutorily defined "firearms." The Act includes within the term "firearm" a machinegun, § 5845(a)(6), and further defines a machinegun as "any weapon which shoots, . . . or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger," § 5845(b). Thus, any fully automatic weapon is a "firearm" within the meaning of the Act. Under the Act, all firearms must be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Secretary of the Treasury. § 5841. Section 5861(d) makes it a crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, see § 5871, for any person to possess a firearm that is not properly registered.
Upon executing a search warrant at petitioner's home, local police and agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) recovered, among other things, an AR-15 rifle. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire. Many M-16 parts are interchangeable with those in the AR-15 and can be used to convert the AR-15 into an automatic weapon. No doubt to inhibit such conversions, the AR-15 is manufactured with a metal stop on its receiver that will prevent an M-16 selector switch, if installed, from rotating to the fully automatic position. The metal stop on petitioner's rifle, however, had been filed away, and the rifle had been assembled with an M-16 selector switch and several other M-16 internal parts, including a hammer, disconnector, and trigger. Suspecting that the AR-15 had been modified to be capable of fully automatic fire, BATF agents seized the weapon. Petitioner subsequently was indicted for unlawful possession of an unregistered machinegun in violation of § 5861(d).
At trial, BATF agents testified that when the AR-15 was tested, it fired more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. It was undisputed that the weapon was not registered as required by § 5861(d). Petitioner testified that the rifle had never fired automatically when it was in his possession. He insisted that the AR-15 had operated only semiautomatically, and even then imperfectly, often requiring manual ejection of the spent casing and chambering of the next round. According to petitioner, his alleged ignorance of any automatic firing capability should have shielded him from criminal liability for his failure to register the weapon. He requested the District Court to instruct the jury that, to establish a violation of § 5861(d), the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant "knew that the gun would fire fully automatically." . . .
Whether or not § 5861(d) requires proof that a defendant knew of the characteristics of his weapon that made it a "firearm" under the Act is a question of statutory construction. As we observed in Liparota v. United States . . . "the definition of the elements of a criminal offense is entrusted to the legislature, particularly in the case of federal crimes, which are solely creatures of statute." . . . (citing United States v. Hudson. . . . Thus, we have long recognized that determining the mental state required for commission of a federal crime requires "construction of the statute and . . . inference of the intent of Congress."
The language of the statute, the starting place in our inquiry, see Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain . . . provides little explicit guidance in this case. Section 5861(d) is silent concerning the mens rea required for a violation. It states simply that "it shall be unlawful for any person . . . to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record." 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). Nevertheless, silence on this point by itself does not necessarily suggest that Congress intended to dispense with a conventional mens rea element, which would require that the defendant know the facts that make his conduct illegal. See Balint, supra, at 251 (stating that traditionally, "scienter" was a necessary element in every crime). See also n. 3, infra. On the contrary, we must construe the statute in light of the background rules of the common law, see United States v. United States Gypsum Co., in which the requirement of some mens rea for a crime is firmly embedded. As we have observed, "the existence of a mens rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of Anglo-American criminal jurisprudence." (internal quotation marks omitted). . . .
There can be no doubt that this established concept has influenced our interpretation of criminal statutes. Indeed, we have noted that the common-law rule requiring mens rea has been "followed in regard to statutory crimes even where the statutory definition did not in terms include it." Balint. Relying on the strength of the traditional rule, we have stated that offenses that require no mens rea generally are disfavored, Liparota, supra, at 426, and have suggested that some indication of congressional intent, express or implied, is required to dispense with mens rea as an element of a crime. . . .
According to the Government, however, the nature and purpose of the Act suggest that the presumption favoring mens rea does not apply to this case. The Government argues that Congress intended the Act to regulate and restrict the circulation of dangerous weapons. Consequently, in the Government's view, this case fits in a line of precedent concerning what we have termed "public welfare" or "regulatory" offenses, in which we have understood Congress to impose a form of strict criminal liability through statutes that do not require the defendant to know the facts that make his conduct illegal. In construing such statutes, we have inferred from silence that Congress did not intend to require proof of mens rea to establish an offense.
For example, in Balint, we concluded that the Narcotic Act of 1914, which was intended in part to minimize the spread of addictive drugs by criminalizing undocumented sales of certain narcotics, required proof only that the defendant knew that he was selling drugs, not that he knew the specific items he had sold were "narcotics" within the ambit of the statute. . . . United States v. Dotterweich . . . (stating in dicta that a statute criminalizing the shipment of adulterated or misbranded drugs did not require knowledge that the items were misbranded or adulterated). As we explained in Dotterweich, Balint dealt with "a now familiar type of legislation whereby penalties serve as effective means of regulation. Such legislation dispenses with the conventional requirement for criminal conduct -- awareness of some wrongdoing." . . .
The Government argues that § 5861(d) defines precisely the sort of regulatory offense described in Balint. In this view, all guns, whether or not they are statutory "firearms," are dangerous devices that put gun owners on notice that they must determine at their hazard whether their weapons come within the scope of the Act. On this understanding, the District Court's instruction in this case was correct, because a conviction can rest simply on proof that a defendant knew he possessed a "firearm" in the ordinary sense of the term.
The Government seeks support for its position from our decision in United States v. Freed . . . which involved a prosecution for possession of unregistered grenades under § 5861(d). The defendant knew that the items in his possession were grenades, and we concluded that § 5861(d) did not require the Government to prove the defendant also knew that the grenades were unregistered. . . . To be sure, in deciding that mens rea was not required with respect to that element of the offense, we suggested that the Act "is a regulatory measure in the interest of the public safety, which may well be premised on the theory that one would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of hand grenades is not an innocent act." . . . Grenades, we explained, "are highly dangerous offensive weapons, no less dangerous than the narcotics involved in United States v. Balint." . . . But that reasoning provides little support for dispensing with mens rea in this case.
As the Government concedes, Freed did not address the issue presented here. In Freed, we decided only that § 5861(d) does not require proof of knowledge that a firearm is unregistered. The question presented by a defendant who possesses a weapon that is a "firearm" for purposes of the Act, but who knows only that he has a "firearm" in the general sense of the term, was not raised or considered. And our determination that a defendant need not know that his weapon is unregistered suggests no conclusion concerning whether § 5861(d) requires the defendant to know of the features that make his weapon a statutory "firearm"; different elements of the same offense can require different mental states. . . . Moreover, our analysis in Freed likening the Act to the public welfare statute in Balint rested entirely on the assumption that the defendant knew that he was dealing with hand grenades -- that is, that he knew he possessed a particularly dangerous type of weapon (one within the statutory definition of a "firearm"), possession of which was not entirely "innocent" in and of itself. . . . The predicate for that analysis is eliminated when, as in this case, the very question to be decided is whether the defendant must know of the particular characteristics that make his weapon a statutory firearm.
Notwithstanding these distinctions, the Government urges that Freed's logic applies because guns, no less than grenades, are highly dangerous devices that should alert their owners to the probability of regulation. But the gap between Freed and this case is too wide to bridge. In glossing over the distinction between grenades and guns, the Government ignores the particular care we have taken to avoid construing a statute to dispense with mens rea where doing so would "criminalize a broad range of apparently innocent conduct." Liparota. . . . In Liparota, we considered a statute that made unlawful the unauthorized acquisition or possession of food stamps. We determined that the statute required proof that the defendant knew his possession of food stamps was unauthorized, largely because dispensing with such a mens rea requirement would have resulted in reading the statute to outlaw a number of apparently innocent acts. . . . Our conclusion that the statute should not be treated as defining a public welfare offense rested on the commonsense distinction that a "food stamp can hardly be compared to a hand grenade."
Neither, in our view, can all guns be compared to hand grenades. Although the contrast is certainly not as stark as that presented in Liparota, the fact remains that there is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country. Such a tradition did not apply to the possession of hand grenades in Freed or to the selling of dangerous drugs that we considered in Balint. . . . In fact, in Freed we construed § 5861(d) under the assumption that "one would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of hand grenades is not an innocent act." . . . Here, the Government essentially suggests that we should interpret the section under the altogether different assumption that "one would hardly be surprised to learn that owning a gun is not an innocent act." That proposition is simply not supported by common experience. Guns in general are not "deleterious devices or products or obnoxious waste materials," International Minerals . . . that put their owners on notice that they stand "in responsible relation to a public danger,"
The Government protests that guns, unlike food stamps, but like grenades and narcotics, are potentially harmful devices. Under this view, it seems that Liparota's concern for criminalizing ostensibly innocuous conduct is inapplicable whenever an item is sufficiently dangerous -- that is, dangerousness alone should alert an individual to probable regulation and justify treating a statute that regulates the dangerous device as dispensing with mens rea. But that an item is "dangerous," in some general sense, does not necessarily suggest, as the Government seems to assume, that it is not also entirely innocent. Even dangerous items can, in some cases, be so commonplace and generally available that we would not consider them to alert individuals to the likelihood of strict regulation. As suggested above, despite their potential for harm, guns generally can be owned in perfect innocence. Of course, we might surely classify certain categories of guns -- no doubt including the machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and artillery pieces that Congress has subjected to regulation -- as items the ownership of which would have the same quasi-suspect character we attributed to owning hand grenades in Freed. But precisely because guns falling outside those categories traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possessions, their destructive potential, while perhaps even greater than that of some items we would classify along with narcotics and hand grenades, cannot be said to put gun owners sufficiently on notice of the likelihood of regulation to justify interpreting § 5861(d) as not requiring proof of knowledge of a weapon's characteristics.
On a slightly different tack, the Government suggests that guns are subject to an array of regulations at the federal, state, and local levels that put gun owners on notice that they must determine the characteristics of their weapons and comply with all legal requirements. But regulation in itself is not sufficient to place gun ownership in the category of the sale of narcotics in Balint. The food stamps at issue in Liparota were subject to comprehensive regulations, yet we did not understand the statute there to dispense with a mens rea requirement. Moreover, despite the overlay of legal restrictions on gun ownership, we question whether regulations on guns are sufficiently intrusive that they impinge upon the common experience that owning a gun is usually licit and blameless conduct. Roughly 50 percent of American homes contain at least one firearm of some sort, and in the vast majority of States, buying a shotgun or rifle is a simple transaction that would not alert a person to regulation any more than would buying a car.
* * *
We concur in the Fifth Circuit's conclusion on this point: "It is unthinkable to us that Congress intended to subject such law-abiding, well-intentioned citizens to a possible ten-year term of imprisonment if . . . what they genuinely and reasonably believed was a conventional semi-automatic [weapon] turns out to have worn down into or been secretly modified to be a fully automatic weapon." Anderson. . . . As we noted in Morissette, the "purpose and obvious effect of doing away with the requirement of a guilty intent is to ease the prosecution's path to conviction." . . . We are reluctant to impute that purpose to Congress where, as here, it would mean easing the path to convicting persons whose conduct would not even alert them to the probability of strict regulation in the form of a statute such as § 5861(d).
The potentially harsh penalty attached to violation of § 5861(d) -- up to 10 years' imprisonment -- confirms our reading of the Act. Historically, the penalty imposed under a statute has been a significant consideration in determining whether the statute should be construed as dispensing with mens rea. Certainly, the cases that first defined the concept of the public welfare offense almost uniformly involved statutes that provided for only light penalties such as fines or short jail sentences, not imprisonment in the state penitentiary. . . .
As commentators have pointed out, the small penalties attached to such offenses logically complemented the absence of a mens rea requirement: In a system that generally requires a "vicious will" to establish a crime, 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries, imposing severe punishments for offenses that require no mens rea would seem incongruous. . . . Indeed, some courts justified the absence of mens rea in part on the basis that the offenses did not bear the same punishments as "infamous crimes," Tenement House Dept. v. McDevitt . . . (Cardozo, J.), and questioned whether imprisonment was compatible with the reduced culpability required for such regulatory offenses. . . . Similarly, commentators collecting the early cases have argued that offenses punishable by imprisonment cannot be understood to be public welfare offenses, but must require mens rea . . . (suggesting that the penalty should be the starting point in determining whether a statute describes a public welfare offense); . . . ("Crimes punishable with prison sentences . . . ordinarily require proof of a guilty intent").
Our characterization of the public welfare offense in Morissette hardly seems apt, however, for a crime that is a felony, as is violation of § 5861(d). After all, "felony" is, as we noted in distinguishing certain common-law crimes from public welfare offenses, "'as bad a word as you can give to man or thing.'" . . . Close adherence to the early cases described above might suggest that punishing a violation as a felony is simply incompatible with the theory of the public welfare offense. In this view, absent a clear statement from Congress that mens rea is not required, we should not apply the public welfare offense rationale to interpret any statute defining a felony offense as dispensing with mens rea. . . .
We need not adopt such a definitive rule of construction to decide this case, however. Instead, we note only that where, as here, dispensing with mens rea would require the defendant to have knowledge only of traditionally lawful conduct, a severe penalty is a further factor tending to suggest that Congress did not intend to eliminate a mens rea requirement. In such a case, the usual presumption that a defendant must know the facts that make his conduct illegal should apply.
In short, we conclude that the background rule of the common law favoring mens rea should govern interpretation of § 5861(d) in this case. Silence does not suggest that Congress dispensed with mens rea for the element of § 5861(d) at issue here. Thus, to obtain a conviction, the Government should have been required to prove that petitioner knew of the features of his AR-15 that brought it within the scope of the Act. . . .
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE O'CONNOR joins, concurring in the judgment. The statute petitioner Harold E. Staples is charged with violating, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), makes it a crime for any person to "receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him." Although the word "knowingly" does not appear in the statute's text, courts generally assume that Congress, absent a contrary indication, means to retain a mens rea requirement. . . . Thus, our holding in United States v. Freed, that § 5861(d) does not require proof of knowledge that the firearm is unregistered, rested on the premise that the defendant indeed knew the items he possessed were hand grenades. (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment) ("The Government and the Court agree that the prosecutor must prove knowing possession of the items and also knowledge that the items possessed were hand grenades.").
Conviction under § 5861(d), the Government accordingly concedes, requires proof that Staples "knowingly" possessed the machine gun. . . . The question before us is not whether knowledge of possession is required, but what level of knowledge suffices: (1) knowledge simply of possession of the object; (2) knowledge, in addition, that the object is a dangerous weapon; (3) knowledge, beyond dangerousness, of the characteristics that render the object subject to regulation, for example, awareness that the weapon is a machine gun. . . .
The Nation's legislators chose to place under a registration requirement only a very limited class of firearms, those they considered especially dangerous. The generally "dangerous" character of all guns, the Court therefore observes, ante, at 611-612, did not suffice to give individuals in Staples' situation cause to inquire about the need for registration. Cf. United States v. Balint . . . (requiring reporting of sale of strictly regulated narcotics, opium and cocaine). Only the third reading, then, suits the purpose of the mens rea requirement -- to shield people against punishment for apparently innocent activity. . . .
For these reasons, I conclude that conviction under § 5861(d) requires proof that the defendant knew he possessed not simply a gun, but a machinegun. The indictment in this case, but not the jury instruction, properly described this knowledge requirement. I therefore concur in the Court's judgment.
Edit: never mind, screwed up
FWIW:
Some newer info is available on the Olofson/Bladerunner case:
The tread on TOS is on its 61st page , no change in quality. Looks like Olofson will be in court today , Tuesday ,13 May.
A Yahoo search for David Olofson brought up a copy of items:
Part of the trial transcript , 56 pages covering the closing arguements and instructions to the jury , is available at:
www.davidkopel.com/2A/Olofson/3-OLOFSON?3_OLOFSON-trial-Transcript
Nothing jumped out that seemed to decisively change things in Olson's favor. Be interesting to see what people with lots of experience in civilian courts think.
There is a TOS-like thread thread at:
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboardphp?92=view_9//&
Not much substance , but lots of smoke and heat. A tough read.
It looks like the jury made a good call.
Note:links are not hot , ran out of time.
Edit: I can not get the addresses to appear properly ( characters missing , etc) even with the edit feature. Very strange. Try a Yahoo search for David Olofson.
http://www.davidkopel.com/2A/Olofson/2-OLOFSON-trial-TRANSCRIPT.pdf
http://www.davidkopel.com/2A/Olofson/3-OLOFSON-trial-TRANSCRIPT.pdf
They're reporting in the arfcom thread that he got 30 months, 2 years probation, as well as some community service.
Update on BATFE raid (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483&page=62), arfcom page 62
I need to read the transcripts, but I'm still scratching my head about why he was NOT charged for Manufacturing, but for Transfer.
Q. But what is minute difference between .556 and .223?
A. Just in the diameter of the cartridge at the neck and the
length of that neck.
Q. And will a gunfire differently if you're using .223 versus
.556?
A. No, sir.
Q. No? No guns, no matter what you have in, if it takes .223
it will take .556 just as well?
A. Any weapon made in the United States that's chambered for
.223 will also fire .556.
This Defense Counsel to Agent Kingery. Now, not exactly on point per se but his last answer strikes me as odd. You might be able to get away with firing M193 out of a bolt gun, and you ALSO might be lucky to get it to extract. So to say that they are completely interchangeable from a functional standpoint, I would say is incorrect. Granted perhaps a MINOR point, but if you are going to work as an expert in your field, minor points matter. Especially if people might go to jail.
Still reading further............
NCPatrolAR
05-14-08, 03:19
I need to read the transcripts, but I'm still scratching my head about why he was NOT charged for Manufacturing, but for Transfer.
easier to prove the transfer.
Q. But what is minute difference between .556 and .223?
A. Just in the diameter of the cartridge at the neck and the
length of that neck.
Uh, the outer dimensions of the cases are identical. The "diameter" of the cartridge at the neck????? Length of the neck?
The difference is in the specs for the load and the thickness of the cases and in the chambering in the firearm...
Some expert
Chad
Indeed that's what I was thinking as well. ETA: directed at NC, easier to prove the transfer.
I will admit that its entirely possible that not only did he know what he
had, that he also knowingly modified it to to function as a MG, albeit thru a highly dangerous method, namely by purposefully making the hammer follow thru. If so, well, that's satisfies the mens rea requirement in Staples.
MY problem with this whole case is the Prosecutions assertion that NO MATTER WHAT the reason, any gun that fires more than one round per pull of the trigger meets the statutory definition of a machine gun. In other words even a malfunctioning gun meets that standard. And that's not a good legal precedent to be setting:
MR. FAHL: No, he hasn't seen it. In this particular
firearm he did not see it. I will develop -- and if you want me
to -- I mean, that he is familiar with hammer follow.
The other thing that I will establish is his --
MR. HAANSTAD: (Interrupting) First of all, I'm not
sure if I understand why that's relevant, the hammer follow. I
mean, there's no indication that that's what was going on with
respect to this particular gun. And there's no indication that
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.
MR. FAHL: And that's where I think we have some
issues. The Staples case, footnote one Justice Thomas said you
have to -- you know, it has to go without stopping -- until then
-- and that was adopted by the 7th Circuit.
And under that jury instruction, if that one goes
through, you know, we'll have an issue about the hammer follow
and what happened with the three rounds and then stopping.
It definitely will go to knowledge.
AUSA questioning Len Savage for the Defense:
Q. Okay. Now, you testified that you examined the Olympic Arms firearm, Exhibit 1, right?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And have you ever test fired it?
A. No, I wouldn't want to.
Q. Have you ever seen it test fired?
A. I saw the video.
Q. Okay.
A. And as a matter of fact, the video shows that the guy who
was shooting it was so afraid to fire it from the shoulder he
had to hold it out in front of him. So he knew it was
dangerous.
Q. Sir, again, it was a yes-or-no question, and if there's more
that the defense team thinks that you should add, they'll have
an opportunity to come up and ask you guess after I do, okay?
So you've seen the video test fire; that's the only
time that you've seen that gun test fired.
A. I saw a portion of it. Was that all of it?
Q. You saw a portion of it here in court today you mean.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And as you sit here right now can you testify as to
whether or not that particular firearm would fire automatically?
A. Could I testify whether it would?
Q. Yes.
A. I'll take the government's word that that gun's
malfunctioning.
Q. Well, I don't think that was the government's word.
A. Well, the government said -- the government's video shows
that gun malfunctioning.
Q. Do you know right now if you took that gun and were able to
test fire it, and if you pulled the trigger once, would it fire
more than one round?
A. I wouldn't do that after seeing that video.
Q. Okay, but can you tell the jury whether or not you know if
that firearm would fire more than one round with one pull of the
trigger right now?
A. I'm telling you specifically that gun is malfunctioning and
is broken.
Q. Do you know how many rounds it would fire if you pulled the
trigger?
A. It wouldn't matter, it would still be broken whether it shot
one or 50 or 100, it's still a defective firearm.
Q. And if you pull the trigger once and it shot 50 or 100,
would that change your opinion as to whether or not this is a
machine gun?
A. No, it wouldn't because a malfunctioning firearm is not a
machine gun. If you had a double-barreled rifle and you pulled
one trigger and both went off accidentally, is the
double-barrelled rifle according to your definition a machine
gun because it fired more than one --
Q. (Interrupting) Okay, sir --
A. -- function of the trigger?
Q. Again, I'm asking questions, okay?
A. Forgive me.
Q. You say that if you were to take that firearm, pull the
trigger once, and more than one round fired, if you determined
that in your head it was because it was malfunctioning you would
not classify that as a machine gun, right?
A. No, because it's a defective firearm.
Q. And according to what standard would you disqualify that as
a machine gun? Where is the authority for that?
A. The ATF. In 1986 they actually issued a safety warning to
everybody in the industry and asked that everybody stop using
M-16 parts in AR-15 rifles.
Q. But you're familiar with the statutory definition of a
machine gun, right?
A. Yes, I am. And it doesn't say by malfunction, it says by
design. That gun is not designed to fire full auto.
Q. Doesn't it say any firearm that fires automatically more
than one round, single function of a trigger without manual
reload?
A. Shoots or is designed to shoot. That is not designed to
shoot more than one round per function of the trigger.
Q. It says "or," right? Shoots or is designed to shoot.
A. I don't have -- there's actually six separate definitions,
but the bottom line is that is not the frame or receiver of a
machine gun,
Bottom line, no matter what Olofoson did or didn't do, no matter if he is or is not a "Sovreign" nutter, the position of the AUSA is clearly articulated above, namely if it shoots more than one round per pull of the trigger, malfunction or not, you have a machine gun.
Ask yourself this question: what would be YOUR first thought if you had a gun, ANY gun, double on you at the range? Would it be 'oh shit I have a machinegun' or would it be 'oh shit, this gun is dicked up and malfunctioning'
Common sense dictates the answer, and obviously that's rhetorical.
I still need to read further in the 2nd .pdf to see if they established 'mens rea' per Staples, namely INTENT.
There is also some evidence in the transcripts to indicate that indeed Oly DID sometimes use FA selectors in their guns along with hammers, triggers, and disconnectors.
NCPatrolAR
05-14-08, 04:06
I personaly dont think you have anything to worry about if you have a malfunctioning firearm. Get it fixed, dont loan it out to people, etc and you should be fine. Each of the ATF agents I worked with have told me it would be hard to get a malfunctioning gun case accepted on the Fed level unless something else was going on.
Certainly no offense to you, but I'm not going to proceed on third hand advice.
In THIS case, what exactly WAS going on? Did you read the transcripts yet? Seems to be that the dude was quite vocal about the whole 'sovereign' deal, which as we both know is a bunch of nonsense. I'm sure you've met a few of those types in your line of work, good for a laugh at least.
On the surface it seems to me that he DID know what he had, and made no effort to fix it. I'm reading the AUSA's close now, and he makes a fairly good argument that Olofson was not ignorant of the fact that he had a weapon that COULD sometimes fire FA.
Now, I've emphasized already that you should focus on
the definition that's provided. And if you do so, you see that
the statute covered not only as Mr. Fahl indicated a weapon that
shoots automatically more than one shot -- and he's right,
that's written in the present tense -- but there's no support in
that statutory definition for the notion that right as you, as
jurors, deliberate, we have to demonstrate to you that this
particular gun shoots automatically. Because the definition
provides that a machine gun is any weapon which not only shoots
but which is designed to shoot or can be readily restored to
shoot automatically more than one shot with a single function of
the trigger.
The whole 'readily restored' deal kind of bugs me. Could one not argue that ANY EBR meets that legal definition? I guess 'readily' is a bit like pornography? Nobody knows what it means, but you know it when you see it? :cool: What is the 'threshold' for 'readily'? Is that a moving target depending upon if you have tin foil political beliefs like the Plantiff in this case?
The fact that there is no standardized testing procedures in place is troubling as well.
NCPatrolAR
05-14-08, 05:17
Certainly no offense to you, but I'm not going to proceed on third hand advice.
I dont expect you too. I'm just pointing out that I think a lot of people are getting worked up over nothing.
Did you read the transcripts yet?
I've only read what was posted over at TOS. Frankly I dont care to read any more unless something earth shattering comes out because I dont view him as a victim of the system like many other people do.
Could one not argue that ANY EBR meets that legal definition?
I would say no sense taking most semi-auto firearms from semi only to a select-fire state involves drilling the receiver and/or possible modification of other internal parts.
I dont expect you too. I'm just pointing out that I think a lot of people are getting worked up over nothing.
I've only read what was posted over at TOS. Frankly I dont care to read any more unless something earth shattering comes out because I dont view him as a victim of the system like many other people do.
I would say no sense taking most semi-auto firearms from semi only to a select-fire state involves drilling the receiver and/or possible modification of other internal parts.
I don't think the 'man' is oppressing him either, so we agree on that.
If all you have read has been on TOS I can see why you might be a tad frustrated :cool: I gave it up over there re: this discussion quite some time ago because emotion quickly overtook reason and logical discourse. Hell I gave up on the whole place a long time ago for the very same reason.
I just thinks its a bad legal precedent for the AUSA to be setting, namely that a malfunctioning gun that doubles is a 'machine gun'.
He clearly stated his opinion in the case. It matters not why it goes bang multiple times per pull of the trigger. It only has to do it, under some very arbitrary conditions and not all the time. The first time they tested it, according to expert testimony it did NOT function as a MG, even with the selector in the 3rd position. They
continued to test it until they got the desired result.
Luckily I don't reside in the area that that particular Circuit court has controlling legal authority over.
Reading the transcript, its pretty clear to me that Olofson knew what he had in light of circumstantial evidence that was recovered during the search of his home, so his screwed the pooch. He's lucky the damn thing didn't blow up on him actually from firing out of battery.
Seafarinman
05-16-08, 15:42
I used to own a Daewoo DR200 11 years ago. I bought the Ace skeleton stock set for it that came with the requisite "US made" fire control parts to make the removal of the thumbhole stock legal. After installing the fire control parts the weapon would sometimes go full auto. After that happening a couple of times I removed the legal US made parts and reinstalled the original Korean parts inside the receiver and then sold the rifle to a gun shop and bought my first AR15.
MY problem with this whole case is the Prosecutions assertion that NO MATTER WHAT the reason, any gun that fires more than one round per pull of the trigger meets the statutory definition of a machine gun. In other words even a malfunctioning gun meets that standard. And that's not a good legal precedent to be setting
In my opinion, that's the main point we need to take from this.
For what it's worth, I try to always keep this in mind with regard to legal matters:
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Was Ernesto Miranda a good guy? No. Would you invite him to dinner with your family? (I wouldn't)
Did he [eventually] get what he deserved? Yes. Did it come from the legal system? No.
Was Jack Miller a good guy? No. Was he railroaded by the FedGov? Yes.
Did he [eventually] get what he deserved? Yes. Did it come from the legal system? No.
Now, how did the precedent set by both of those "bad guys" end up affecting the lives of us "good guys"?
He's lucky the damn thing didn't blow up on him actually from firing out of battery.
It's physically impossible for the firing pin to reach the primer on an AR15 rifle until the bolt is completely in battery.
I personaly dont think you have anything to worry about if you have a malfunctioning firearm. Get it fixed, dont loan it out to people, etc and you should be fine. Each of the ATF agents I worked with have told me it would be hard to get a malfunctioning gun case accepted on the Fed level unless something else was going on.
At least until a Democraptic administration comes along and "realigns priorities" (to use administrative-speak).
<strategy_meeting>
"Year after year, the Republicans accuse us of not being tough on crime. This year, let's really show those bastards."
</strategy_meeting>
The whole 'readily restored' deal kind of bugs me.
Me, too. As they're discussing on TOS, "readily restored" seems to be evolving further and further away from meaning "readily restored to some previous condition" and closer and closer to meaning "readily converted to a condition that will fire, automatically, more than one round per function of the trigger."
Could one not argue that ANY EBR meets that legal definition? I guess 'readily' is a bit like pornography? Nobody knows what it means, but you know it when you see it? :cool: What is the 'threshold' for 'readily'? Is that a moving target depending upon if you have tin foil political beliefs like the Plantiff in this case?
That's the scariest part, in my opinion. Because the definition of "tin foil political beliefs" will, if left unchecked, gradually evolve to include people who believe the Second Amendment isn't "about the rights of States to have a well-regulated National Guard."
There are a lot of people, both in the public-at-large and in government, who believe that already.
The fact that there is no standardized testing procedures in place is troubling as well.
I agree. We need to start there (standardized testing procedures) and see where that takes us.
Without standardized testing procedures, there exists the troubling potential for some anti-2A zealot in ATF clothing to take your semi-auto AR and "readily convert -- erm, restore" it to fire automatically, more than one shot per function of the trigger.
If not today, then tomorrow. Let us not be a part of establishing a precedent that may [eventually] reach to ourselves.
NCPatrolAR
05-20-08, 19:20
At least until a Democraptic administration comes along and "realigns priorities" (to use administrative-speak).
Doubt it.
I've read that thread over at TOS... I gotta tell ya.. I'm not surprised at the outcome... and for all of you "Chicken Littles" who are terrified that you are next... relax... This guy did it to himself..
I've owned AR's for a long time and have put more rds thru them then the average guy.. and I never had a malfunction.. and you won't either.. unless you start screwin around with Fire control groups.
This gun HAD M16 parts in it... He can tap dance around who put them in there... but. Only two folks .. the kid he loaned it too or him...anyone here think either one is going to admit it...( I know who I would pick)
and here's the part that cracks me up with this guy.. he claims that the ATF "wanted"him to roll over on some other guys and he would not play... Puhleeese... Guy thinks he's Randy Weaver... How many Gun "Kingpins" do you think we have in Wisconsin that the ATF is working on....
Like I said, this guy put himself on the radar along time ago and this is what happens.
The lesson learned here kids... Don't put M16 parts in your AR...period...
Oh yeah,, I just completed a 3 day class where 14 guns fired over 1500 rds each... and guess what... not of them went full auto or malfunctioned due to "worn" parts... as a matter of fact.. none of the guns I've seen in classes over the last 5 yrs have done that...Amazing how that works.....:rolleyes:
I've read that thread over at TOS... I gotta tell ya.. I'm not surprised at the outcome... and for all of you "Chicken Littles" who are terrified that you are next... relax... This guy did it to himself..
Agreed regarding this man. However, I had an AR I bought used in the early 90's that locked up on me full-auto more than once. Each time it did so it went through at least 5 rounds. Once it emptied a 20 round magazine. Of course, I decided I wanted no part of the weapon after a couple outings and re-sold it to a dealer to whom I assured it had a full-auto issue. He was skeptical to my dismay, but hopefully he did his due diligence.
I still have no idea how any of that happened, as 95% of the time it functioned as a standard semi-auto and did not have a selector switch.
Doubt it.
I'm sure that, during the time of GHWB, a lot of kitchen table FFLs told themselves that BATFE would *never* go after them.......
Then the gunowner's friend, William Jefferson, comes along and -- lo and behold -- "realigns priorities".
About 10 years back, I had an AR that would double. No biggie. I took it to S.A.W. and he replaced the hammer and trigger. It can happen.
I agree that this idiot brought it on himself. His criminal record shows that he has a good history of pushing it.
David Olofson reported to Federal prison a few days ago.
30 months.
The TOS chatter and drama continues. A series of teachable moments go to waste on TOS. Mostly to waste , anyway.
Very little media coverage.
Life goes on.
QuietShootr
07-05-08, 23:56
I'm thinking it might be cheap insurance against this type of jackbooted asshattery to install a titanium firing pin. I know about the durability issues...but just how durable is your bacon ring? Mine isn't rated for full-auto prison assault, I assure you.
I have a little experience in both prosecution and changing around AR parts. The rules really are pretty simple. Any full auto part in a non registered lower and it's illegal. This individual did it and then lent the gun to an unsuspecting "customer".
After decades now of working with both platforms I've never mixed and matched those types of parts. This is the kind of story that make the gun grabbers salivate, and makes it harder for the rest of us.
After reading this thread and portions of the arf.com tread I think this dude is a certified "dummy". He states in one of his posts that he has lent this weapon out on numerous occasions and in the most recent that he really did not know the individual he lent it to. I'm not sure about the laws in his area, but lending firearms to people you don't know is stupid at best! Add in that he lent a weapon that he knew was prone to malfunctions and or had worn out parts?
The liability associated with a weapon that does not function properly alone should be cause for him to "keep it in the safe". What if the guy he loaned it to lost control during one of the "bursts of fire" and shot somebody or himself? Never mind the ass aches that could come from the weapon being used in a crime or otherwise inappropriate usage?
I think the moral of this story is to not loan out your weapons, especially ones that are not in proper working order, to people you hardly know!:rolleyes:
This kind of incident does not help in bolstering our God given rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. When average people who are not "into guns/shooting" hear of this type of situation, I can only assume they think..... This is what the anti-gun lobby is talking about. People loaning weapons to others(who may have "sketchy" backgrounds & "possibly" converted(illegally)!This is the general "STINK" that sticks to all law abiding gun owners when this kind of nonsense occurs!
After reading this thread and portions of the arf.com tread I think this dude is a certified "dummy". He states in one of his posts that he has lent this weapon out on numerous occasions and in the most recent that he really did not know the individual he lent it to.
I've developed my own opinion/profile of this idiot. Based on his previous criminal background he obviously liked to thumb his nose at authority. He is also one of those self appointed consultants to people just getting interested in guns/the AR platform. A wannabee big fish in the gun community, although he was neither a dealer, an instructor, or anything other than a peckerwood.
And the fact that he had an Olympic Arms is enough reason to put him in prison in my opinion. :p
I wasn't aware he had a criminal history? Anywho... One of the things that pisses me off about this douche bag is that he tried to drop the blame in the ATF's lap. He uses poor(at best) judgment pertaining to several issues such as:
1. Loaning weapons to people he does not know.
2. Loaning/using a weapon he knows is not in proper working order.
3. Using "select fire" parts in an AR.
4. Then blaming those parts on everyone but himself.
But has the stones to come out on the net looking to drum up support! Blaming the ATF and accusing the Feds of rail roading him!
:rolleyes:
I wasn't aware he had a criminal history?
There was about 5 items in his background, and they really painted a clear picture to me. CCW violations, and tax violations stand out in my memory.
I mean.... anyone can have a run in with the law. I can dig it. If it were just a CCW violation, I could say... Ah.. he's just a gun guy who values his life over the law. But there is just too many encounters with authority to give this ape the benefit of the doubt.
[QUOTE=JLM;141728]Sure, apparently the query expires after a certain period of time, hence you have to research.
Conviction on Disorderly Conduct
Conviction on Carrying on Concealed Weapon
5 Pending Tax Cases it looks like
And multiple civil judgements
As I said, I don't think he's Ted Bundy, but Dobbs assertion that he has no criminal record was incorrect.
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/simpleCaseSearch.xsl;jsessionid=FFD49CD5B554254521448EFA18507D08.render5
Try that, and you should be able to run the search yourself for "David R. Olofson".
End quote.
Here's a little more information concerning that guy's court records.
Edit: link works.
http://www.davidkopel.com/2A/Olofson/2-OLOFSON-trial-TRANSCRIPT.pdf
http://www.davidkopel.com/2A/Olofson/3-OLOFSON-trial-TRANSCRIPT.pdf
Trial transcripts , including instructions to the jury.
Might be handy to have the various court record links together in one place.
Links work.
Conviction on Disorderly Conduct
Conviction on Carrying on Concealed Weapon
5 Pending Tax Cases it looks like
And multiple civil judgements
That's what I was talking about. That is an excessive amount of judicial entanglements. I can understand a few minor run ins with the law, but if you're a decent character otherwise, you generally won't get a conviction of anything minor on a first time offense.
That's what I was talking about. That is an excessive amount of judicial entanglements. I can understand a few minor run ins with the law, but if you're a decent character otherwise, you generally won't get a conviction of anything minor on a first time offense.
In line with what you and others are saying...
Folks usually have a much more lengthy list of involvements and arrests than convictions. The former carry a lot of weight in decisions to investigate and prosecute, and the level of interest and effort with which its done. Involvements and intel will rarely be made public, but that's where the good stuff is.
That may or may not be the case here, but it's something to keep in mind.
Exactly. In order to rack up that many publicly available records, you generally have to keep trying to be a pain in the ass. The "system" will generally go out of it's way to avoid convicting a half way decent character for minor offenses.
This guy is the new Randy Weaver.....;)
Here's my prediction..This guy serves out his time and fades in to anonymity.
This guy is the new Randy Weaver.....;)
Here's my prediction..This guy serves out his time and fades in to anonymity.
I say he serves out his term, and becomes a door to door KNS pin salesman!
BaileyMoto
07-09-08, 21:57
.....
[QUOTE=JLM;141728]Sure, apparently the query expires after a certain period of time, hence you have to research.
Conviction on Disorderly Conduct
Conviction on Carrying on Concealed Weapon
5 Pending Tax Cases it looks like
And multiple civil judgements
As I said, I don't think he's Ted Bundy, but Dobbs assertion that he has no criminal record was incorrect.
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/simpleCaseSearch.xsl;jsessionid=FFD49CD5B554254521448EFA18507D08.render5
Try that, and you should be able to run the search yourself for "David R. Olofson".
End quote.
Here's a little more information concerning that guy's court records.
Edit: link works.
Here's what I got from it:
1995: guilty, misd CCW
1997: All charges [my note: what charges?!?] against David R Olofson in this case have been dismissed. These charges were not proven and have no legal effect. David R Olofson is presumed innocent.
2001: guilty, Disorderly Conduct, a class B misdemeanor
2003: guilty, Non-Registration of Auto, etc.. This is not a criminal offense and results only in a money penalty for this offense.
2004: guilty, Mandatory Seatbelts Requirement. This is not a criminal offense and results only in a money penalty for this offense.
2004: guilty, Operate after Rev/Susp of Registration. This is not a criminal offense and results only in a money penalty for this offense.
IIRC (and it's been a while, so I may not) his CCW charge was not for carrying the weapon concealed "on or about his person" (as we would say in Texas) but was for transporting it in his vehicle (or "traveling," as we would have sais in Texas until very recently) not according to the letter of the law.
So, other than that misd CCW and the misd disorderly conduct charge (for which no further information is given), all I saw were the small-claims court tax judgements and filings, some by him against others, and others against him.
Generally speaking prior criminal conduct is irrelevant and IIRC cannot be used against someone during a trial as it would prejudice the jury. Having said that this guy was playing with fire and got burned. he knew what he was doing and should have never leant the weapon out to begin with.
And I believe that the point others were making was that there was a pattern of disregard in general for the law.
[QUOTE=gbear48;188311]
Here's what I got from it:
IIRC (and it's been a while, so I may not) his CCW charge was not for carrying the weapon concealed "on or about his person" (as we would say in Texas) but was for transporting it in his vehicle (or "traveling," as we would have sais in Texas until very recently) not according to the letter of the law.
So, other than that misd CCW and the misd disorderly conduct charge (for which no further information is given), all I saw were the small-claims court tax judgements and filings, some by him against others, and others against him.
Generally speaking prior criminal conduct is irrelevant and IIRC cannot be used against someone during a trial as it would prejudice the jury.
Prior criminal conduct can be introduced for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:
to show a pattern of behavior (i.e., this guy always cut the toes off his victims, and the victim in this case had her toes cut off)
if prior conviction is an element of the instant crime (i.e., felon in possession)
as character evidence if the defendant testifies (usually applies only to prior felony convictions)
Todd,
I'm not a lawyer, but I have spent alot of time at the Holiday Inn. I guess I could have stated that relevant criminal history, conduct or behavior could be introduced. It really doesn't matter though because this guy knew exactly what he was doing.
Prior criminal conduct can be introduced for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to:
to show a pattern of behavior (i.e., this guy always cut the toes off his victims, and the victim in this case had her toes cut off)
if prior conviction is an element of the instant crime (i.e., felon in possession)
as character evidence if the defendant testifies (usually applies only to prior felony convictions)
Was just trying to fill in the details since you said "generally speaking" ... I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Todd,
No worries. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic,and thanks for fixing my SNAFU. :D
Was just trying to fill in the details since you said "generally speaking" ... I wasn't disagreeing with you.
Sorry guys, I wasn't trying to cause any static; just point out that Olofson's two "big" charges (the misd CCW violation and the misd DC) aren't that cut-and-dried in the People's Republic of Wisconsin.
Perfectly-legal car transport is just a coochie hair removed from illegal [misd] CCW, and here's a thread on arf (WI HTF (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=21&t=318213)) that talks about how perfectly-legal open carry can easily be trumped-up into disorderly conduct.
ETA: WI HTF legal FAQ by glenn_r (http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=137), which discusses the carry in vehicles issue (read the 3rd sentence re: misd CCW violations, then scroll down to the "Firearms in vehicles" part).
Todd,
I'm not a lawyer, but I have spent alot of time at the Holiday Inn.
Then your problem was that you did not reside at the Holiday Inn Express. The regular Holiday Inn's don't have the same brain enhancing effects due to a lack of frivolous extras.
Safety,
I recant my previous testimony as I have stayed at both of them and am therefore confused. :D
Then your problem was that you did not reside at the Holiday Inn Express. The regular Holiday Inn's don't have the same brain enhancing effects due to a lack of frivolous extras.
What I would like to hear ya or nay from a qualified armorer is: if a disconnector BREAKS in a lower that consists of PURELY SEMIAUTO FCG parts in the lower AND a FA BCG, can the rifle double? Because apparently if it doubles, you gots a machine gun son.
If the answer is YES, it would seem to me that that would have serious implications for EVERYONE here, regardless of how you feel about this particular guys case. I honestly can't tell one way or another WTF happened from the press accounts and the guys posts (allthou I will admit I was not up to reading all 48 pages at TOS today, nor most days). I DO note with interest thou that the guy in posession of the weapon was not charged with illegal possession nor was Olofson charged with manufacturing. If he dicked with the gun, then why not charge him?[/QUOTE] A simple answer yes a broken disconnector or sear breaks a double or more can happen, I have had it happen on numerous occasions, once with a well used Olympic AR in the mid 80's, once with a Glenfield model 60 in the late 70's, once with a 1917 1911 in the early 80's, I have also had a double from a early 12 gauge LC Smith single triggered shotgun which would now apparently be classified as a machinegun because it discharged more than one round with one pull of the trigger. Any 1911 smith will tell you that anytime someone who doesnt know what they are doing try's to do a trigger job on a 1911 they are at risk of having it go FA. Other than a few weapons like a Beretta 92D, SIG DAK, Smith DAO auto, the only thing keeping them from going FA is small engagement surface on a sear or Disconnector that will eventually wear out. This is a dangerous ruling that will be used again.
Off the top of my head I would say that yes, it could happen. However, this guy knowingly installed a full-auto lower parts kit in the gun and even after it "malfunctioned" he lent it out (If I recall Correctly). I am sure that there would have been no charges had something actually broke causing the weapon to malfunction. But, that isn't what happened.
What I would like to hear ya or nay from a qualified armorer is: if a disconnector BREAKS in a lower that consists of PURELY SEMIAUTO FCG parts in the lower AND a FA BCG, can the rifle double? Because apparently if it doubles, you gots a machine gun son.
If the answer is YES, it would seem to me that that would have serious implications for EVERYONE here, regardless of how you feel about this particular guys case. I honestly can't tell one way or another WTF happened from the press accounts and the guys posts (allthou I will admit I was not up to reading all 48 pages at TOS today, nor most days). I DO note with interest thou that the guy in posession of the weapon was not charged with illegal possession nor was Olofson charged with manufacturing. If he dicked with the gun, then why not charge him? A simple answer yes a broken disconnector or sear breaks a double or more can happen, I have had it happen on numerous occasions, once with a well used Olympic AR in the mid 80's, once with a Glenfield model 60 in the late 70's, once with a 1917 1911 in the early 80's, I have also had a double from a early 12 gauge LC Smith single triggered shotgun which would now apparently be classified as a machinegun because it discharged more than one round with one pull of the trigger. Any 1911 smith will tell you that anytime someone who doesnt know what they are doing try's to do a trigger job on a 1911 they are at risk of having it go FA. Other than a few weapons like a Beretta 92D, SIG DAK, Smith DAO auto, the only thing keeping them from going FA is small engagement surface on a sear or Disconnector that will eventually wear out. This is a dangerous ruling that will be used again.[/QUOTE]
a while back, my buddy's old glock had some malfunction occur where it would randomly shoot 2 shots with 1 pull of the trigger. This was really scary. Not from operational endangerment but from the feds
Hope this thing gets better for this guy. Its a damn shame our country can turn on you like this. Seriously unpatriotic thing to do to an innocent gun owner if he indeed is innocent
Hope this thing gets better for this guy. Its a damn shame our country can turn on you like this. Seriously unpatriotic thing to do to an innocent gun owner if he indeed is innocent
Then you have not read the details of the story. It has been clearly stated numerous times that he knew about the parts involved.
when you get twisted laws enacted with non-obeying government officers play with this the more control you have ,the less rights you will have !look at what happened to D.C. etc!
Then you have not read the details of the story. It has been clearly stated numerous times that he knew about the parts involved. By who the ATF, I read his posts on AR15.com to include everything that the ATF entered into evidence 92 pages worth. He may have been out there on some things but adamately denied anything illegal as far as parts in the weapon. He stated that all of the worn internal parts had been replaced with DPMS replacements. The Oly guns of that era were assembled with mostly M16 parts that were modified to allow SA fire only, these weapons were known for going FA when those parts wore, they were also known for having pin holes drilled out of spec. Add worn parts and out of spec hole placement and it will equal uneaven wear on parts which will add up to a premature failure. No person in their right mind will loan out a illegally modified weapon to a kid and tell him that he can fire it FA at a public range without repercussions. Was he smart in loaning a firearm out to someone he didnt even know,no should he spend almost three years in jail because a weapon malfunctioned, hell no. The ATF even stated after the first test that it was not a machine gun, it was not untill they loaded rounds with pistol primers at the lead agents request that the malfunction was able to be repeated.
Bump to go with the new thread.
I make it easy for Army Chief and others who might be interested.
Links to the trial transcripts and Olofson prior court records are on page 7.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.