height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: All just my opinion, of course, but if I were making side bets, I'd bet that the NRA didn't want to get involved in criticizing the Feds unless it was a guaranteed slam dunk. They've already taken a pass at criticizing GCA 34, had a hand in 68, and pretty much wrote 86 themselves...   I don't think they want to discuss it on live TV. Please cite your sources for the NRA having a hand in the MG ban. THe NRA WAS involved in some of the writing of the language of the Firearms Owner's Protection Act. THe MG ban was slipped in by the Dems, in what was possibly an illegal move. Rumor is that the MG ban was slipped in afterhours by the Dems.

Rumor is that the FOPA is widely ignored EXCEPT for the ban, too. If it was illegal, or they were just played as useful idiots, I have heard precious little protest about it. "Negotiate Rights Away" is not a slam that I thought up...

The problem with answering your demand for a cite is that we will end up parsing every nuance of the legislative process..
Suffice to say that the ban was part of the FOPA which you admit the NRA was involved with. In an odd twist I can now cite you as a source.

Quoted: Quoted: All just my opinion, of course, but if I were making side bets, I'd bet that the NRA didn't want to get involved in criticizing the Feds unless it was a guaranteed slam dunk. They've already taken a pass at criticizing GCA 34, had a hand in 68, and pretty much wrote 86 themselves...   I don't think they want to discuss it on live TV. Please cite your sources for the NRA having a hand in the MG ban. THe NRA WAS involved in some of the writing of the language of the Firearms Owner's Protection Act. THe MG ban was slipped in by the Dems, in what was possibly an illegal move. Rumor is that the MG ban was slipped in afterhours by the Dems.

My fuzzy recollection is that you are correct, and that:

After NRA realized what had happened, they encouraged Reagan to sign it anyway, because they figured they figured that challenging the constitutionality of the MG ban provisions would be a slam-dunk.

[gov't employee]
"I'll get around to it!"
[/gov't employee]

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All just my opinion, of course, but if I were making side bets, I'd bet that the NRA didn't want to get involved in criticizing the Feds unless it was a guaranteed slam dunk. They've already taken a pass at criticizing GCA 34, had a hand in 68, and pretty much wrote 86 themselves...   I don't think they want to discuss it on live TV. Please cite your sources for the NRA having a hand in the MG ban. THe NRA WAS involved in some of the writing of the language of the Firearms Owner's Protection Act. THe MG ban was slipped in by the Dems, in what was possibly an illegal move. Rumor is that the MG ban was slipped in afterhours by the Dems. Rumor is that the FOPA is widely ignored EXCEPT for the ban, too. If it was illegal, or they were just played as useful idiots, I have heard precious little protest about it. "Negotiate Rights Away" is not a slam that I thought up... The problem with answering your demand for a cite is that we will end up parsing every nuance of the legislative process.. Suffice to say that the ban was part of the FOPA which you admit the NRA was involved with. In an odd twist I can now cite you as a source.

YOur screen name is quite apt for your grasp on what the NRA had a hand in doing with the FOPA.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All just my opinion, of course, but if I were making side bets, I'd bet that the NRA didn't want to get involved in criticizing the Feds unless it was a guaranteed slam dunk. They've already taken a pass at criticizing GCA 34, had a hand in 68, and pretty much wrote 86 themselves...   I don't think they want to discuss it on live TV. Please cite your sources for the NRA having a hand in the MG ban. THe NRA WAS involved in some of the writing of the language of the Firearms Owner's Protection Act. THe MG ban was slipped in by the Dems, in what was possibly an illegal move. Rumor is that the MG ban was slipped in afterhours by the Dems. My fuzzy recollection is that you are correct, and that: After NRA realized what had happened, they encouraged Reagan to sign it anyway, because they figured they figured that challenging the constitutionality of the MG ban provisions would be a slam-dunk. [gov't employee] "I'll get around to it!" [/gov't employee]

That is closer to what I've read.

The FOPA rolled back some seriously jacked up regulations (logbooks for ammo purchase, no mail order of ammo, ect). MG's were not the highly sought after commodity that they are now, because you could buy new MG's for not much more that a regular Title 1 firearm, with the exception of the transfer tax.

Quoted: YOur screen name is quite apt for your grasp on what the NRA had a hand in doing with the FOPA.

It's worse than that.
I'm also not getting a good grasp on your point.
They've been busy fixing it? A good excuse equals a good result?
Or simply that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Quoted: Any more followup from Lou Dobbs? sounded like he intended to do so...

They are waiting for some more evolving developments. It is going to be VERY interesting over the next few months.

Originally Posted By E.r.i.k: Anything new?

Not that we can make public.

Yet.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Any more followup from Lou Dobbs? sounded like he intended to do so... did anyone else catch during the second segment Lou had, he said something about a follow up conversation including the NRA?  did that not ever happen?

There are talks. Time will tell.

Quoted: Was Mr. Olofsen convicted of transferring a MG in violation of the NFA or in violation of 922(o)?

Yes, by a jury.

Keep in mind that the jury was only allowed to hear one side though. The government lied to the court to keep all of the exculpatory evidence out. If it was allowed in then it is my belief they would have dropped it short of the trial. Can't have ATF saying one thing on the stand when all the paperwork says something else.

Quoted: Quoted: Was Mr. Olofsen convicted of transferring a MG in violation of the NFA or in violation of 922(o)? Better yet, BladeRunner are you still with us?

If I were you I would plan on me being with you for a long time.

Quoted: Quoted: Was Mr. Olofsen convicted of transferring a MG in violation of the NFA or in violation of 922(o)? Yes, by a jury. Keep in mind that the jury was only allowed to hear one side though. The government lied to the court to keep all of the exculpatory evidence out. If it was allowed in then it is my belief they would have dropped it short of the trial. Can't have ATF saying one thing on the stand when all the paperwork says something else.

BR, in my very limited experience Judges don't like to get 'played'. Is there any indication that this judge is unhappy with the way this went, or is he OK with the exclusions? Has any of the complete info reached him?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Was Mr. Olofsen convicted of transferring a MG in violation of the NFA or in violation of 922(o)? Yes, by a jury. Keep in mind that the jury was only allowed to hear one side though. The government lied to the court to keep all of the exculpatory evidence out. If it was allowed in then it is my belief they would have dropped it short of the trial. Can't have ATF saying one thing on the stand when all the paperwork says something else. BR, in my very limited experience Judges don't like to get 'played'. Is there any indication that this judge is unhappy with the way this went, or is he OK with the exclusions? Has any of the complete info reached him?

He is well aware of what happened in his court. But he was not fully informed of how bad it was until after the fact. How he responds to it is yet to be seen. I believe right now they just want things to cool down a bit before going over everything. But that’s all just my opinion, and we know how little that is worth.

Quoted: Quoted: YOur screen name is quite apt for your grasp on what the NRA had a hand in doing with the FOPA. It's worse than that. I'm also not getting a good grasp on your point. They've been busy fixing it? A good excuse equals a good result? Or simply that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The NRA did encourage Regan to sign FOPA '86, because it lifted much more onerous prohibitions that the MG ban was thought to be. All the ammo yo uorder through the mail? Didn't happen between '68 and '86. The 'peaceable journey' clause? No such thing. logs of who bought what ammo, when, and how much? Struck down by the FOPA '86.

In the '80's MG ownership wasn't a problem. And because of the $200 transfer fee, a lot of people had a hard time justifying $200 for a $400 firearm. Only since May of '86 has MG ownership become a much more prevalent, and because of the now artificially fixed supply, the costs have been driven up to stupid amounts.

I personally would like to see ALL gun laws striken down as unConstitutional, but that won't happen in one fell swoop. We have to take it back a little at a time.

I'm no NRA fanboy, and I think they need to step up and start filing lawsuits to reclaim some of the ground we lost (especially in regards to the MG ban), but it is also partly due to the fact that the BATFE refuses to accept Form 1's from private individuals to convert a Title 1 firearm. The provision in the FOPA '86 only precluded manufacturers from making new MG to sell to the public. It didn't say that the BATFE couldn't accept the $200 to make tax. And that is an angle that the NRA should be pushing. To require that the BATFE start accepting the $200 fee for proivate individuals to manufacture a MG for private use. An also to push to have the BATFE reinstate your right ot own firearms in you have reformed your ways, or were railroaded like Bean was, and like Bladerunner is being.

 I just skimmed a bunch of case documents on another site.

 Too bad Lou D. got flim/flamed into this.  He deserved better.

Tag for comedy value.

Quoted:  I just skimmed a bunch of case documents on another site.  Too bad Lou D. got flim/flamed into this.  He deserved better. Tag for comedy value.

Huh?

Quoted:  I just skimmed a bunch of case documents on another site.  Too bad Lou D. got flim/flamed into this.  He deserved better. Tag for comedy value.

All sights I post on should have the same information on them. What documents are you refering to?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: YOur screen name is quite apt for your grasp on what the NRA had a hand in doing with the FOPA. It's worse than that. I'm also not getting a good grasp on your point. They've been busy fixing it? A good excuse equals a good result? Or simply that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The NRA did encourage Regan to sign FOPA '86, because it lifted much more onerous prohibitions that the MG ban was thought to be. All the ammo yo uorder through the mail? Didn't happen between '68 and '86. The 'peaceable journey' clause? No such thing. logs of who bought what ammo, when, and how much? Struck down by the FOPA '86. In the '80's MG ownership wasn't a problem. And because of the $200 transfer fee, a lot of people had a hard time justifying $200 for a $400 firearm. Only since May of '86 has MG ownership become a much more prevalent, and because of the now artificially fixed supply, the costs have been driven up to stupid amounts. I personally would like to see ALL gun laws striken down as unConstitutional, but that won't happen in one fell swoop. We have to take it back a little at a time. I'm no NRA fanboy, and I think they need to step up and start filing lawsuits to reclaim some of the ground we lost (especially in regards to the MG ban), but it is also partly due to the fact that the BATFE refuses to accept Form 1's from private individuals to convert a Title 1 firearm. The provision in the FOPA '86 only precluded manufacturers from making new MG to sell to the public. It didn't say that the BATFE couldn't accept the $200 to make tax. And that is an angle that the NRA should be pushing. To require that the BATFE start accepting the $200 fee for proivate individuals to manufacture a MG for private use. An also to push to have the BATFE reinstate your right ot own firearms in you have reformed your ways, or were railroaded like Bean was, and like Bladerunner is being.

We lost this in one fell swoop:
   GCA 68
   * prohibited the interstate transfer of guns between non-FFLs,
   * prohibited shipping guns through the mail system,
   * prohibited shipping ammunition through the mail system,
   * establish of minimum ages for firearms purchasers,
   * require that all firearms (domestic and imported) be affixed with a serial number,
   * the expansion of the categories of prohibited persons,
   * and enacted prohibitions on the importation of firearms “with no sporting purpose.”
   * Implemented the Form 4473 (yellow form) for purchases.
   * Attempted to address "Saturday Night Specials" by prohibiting from import small handguns.
   * Established some sentencing guidelines for firearm involved crimes.

Ten steps back for every one forward doesn't sound like a terribly lofty goal. But back to points... NRA, even just in asking for passage, traded away what could not be mistaken for anything but an outright ban for the recension of an inconvenience, and a "safe passage" clause that is ignored at the State and local level. In NRA terms, this was a successful negotiation.

"MG ownership become a much more prevalent" On a fixed supply? (?)

The similarities between the 86 "ban" (refusal to register) and the Heller case are remarkable, and I would not be amazed to see registration resume as a consequence of the decision (assuming a good outcome, of course). What the NRA should be pushing for (with ramifications far beyond firearms) is a curtailment in the misapplication of the commerce clause that currently allows Federal oversight over individual manufacture of a MG for private use (and, in fact, every aspect of daily life).

The NRAs last straw for me was in trying to derail Parker (now Heller) with both Seeger v Ashcroft and disabling legislation. It appeared to me that they were less interested in defending the 2nd that they were in collecting funds by providing lip service while keeping it in limbo. Their actions over the years have become too transparent to blame on stupidity.

I would love to see them circle the wagons around BR, Bean as well, but till they show a more effective course I don't believe that will happen. They have chosen the worst path, seen as overly moderate by their core base, and labeled as extremist by their opposition.

This started as my opinion as to why I would not expect to see the NRA take a helpful position on Lou Dobbs program, and expanded into a defense of why I take that position. I think it is becoming irrelevant to the thread, and with apologies will now try to stay directly on topic.

height=8

Quoted:  I just skimmed a bunch of case documents on another site.  Too bad Lou D. got flim/flamed into this.He Tag for comedy value. houldLou did a FANTASTIC job!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lou had a short update tonight...  The highlights:

"Lou Dobbs Tonight has now learned the government is seeking an even tougher sentence than we originally expected."

"The government is seeking a sentence of 3 1/2 - 4 years"

"Sentencing is scheduled for May 8th"

"Now the National Rifle Association Civil Rights Defense Funds says it has this case under review"

"We'll keep you informed..."

  The deep pocket 2nd Amendment Civil Rights organizations want clean , winable cases and squeaky clean defendants-- good citizens , good neighbors  with no court records. They don't waste our money on flakey cases.

 Some folks just don't make the cut for 2nd Amendment poster boy.  
 
  Some cases are not winable.
 

Guess what was on last night. I didn’t know they had anything planned. A lot more to this, I'm just gaged on it right now. You will flip when it comes out what they are trying to say. Think you as a gun owner are not at risk yet? You will change your mind soon.



DOBBS: Every time we can smell the chamber of commerce, it makes me kind of get committed. You know what I mean?

An update now on a story we first reported to you last month. LOU DOBBS TONIGHT has now learned the government is seeking an even tougher sentence than we originally expected against Army veteran and reservist David Olofson of Wisconsin.

Speaking of cases difficult to understand, try this on for size. Olofson was convicted of, "transferring a machine gun" after his rifle misfired at a shooting range. The government is seeking a sentence of three-and-a-half to four years against Olofson.

This Army veteran, a man with an otherwise absolutely clean record and a wife and three children. His sentence is scheduled for May 8. Now we don't know what's going on. We've been reporting on it. Bill Tucker has been out to -- to meet with Olofson or report on the story.

Now the National Rifle Association's civil rights defense fund said it has this case under review. We'll, of course, keep you informed on this incredible story. Bill Tucker will be amongst those going out to Wisconsin to find out what is going on in that state. It is really an incredible story.

Quoted: Stuff

If you're going to comment, please be less obtuse.  We'd all like to understand your posts, but this makes two in a row that require some sort of Cliff's notes.

Quoted: Quoted: Stuff If you're going to comment, please be less obtuse.  We'd all like to understand your posts, but this makes two in a row that require some sort of Cliff's notes.

Cliff notes, a Ouijii board, the Rosetta Stone, and an Engrish translator.  

Quoted: Quoted:  I just skimmed a bunch of case documents on another site.  Too bad Lou D. got flim/flamed into this.  He deserved better. Tag for comedy value. All sights I post on should have the same information on them. What documents are you refering to?

  A good place to start:

  wcca.wicourts.gov/simplecaseS...507D08render5

  Search for :  David R. Olofson   DOB: 06-12-1971

 Around 19 cases-- Very low win/lose ratio.

Summary :  Disorderly conduct  , carrying concealed , unregistered vehicle , driving after revocation  , multiple tax warrants  ,  multiple small claims  "dead beat" cases.

 Not John Dillenger , but not 2nd Amendment  poster boy material , either.


 I don't think Staples v US  (1994)  will apply in the current case. "Clear knowledge
and intent"  is likely the way the jury saw it.   An appeal will take a lot of money and a long time.

   May 8th is the big day , huh?

 

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:  I just skimmed a bunch of case documents on another site.  Too bad Lou D. got flim/flamed into this.  He deserved better. Tag for comedy value. All sights I post on should have the same information on them. What documents are you refering to?   A good place to start:   wcca.wicourts.gov/simplecaseS...507D08render5   Search for :  David R. Olofson   DOB: 06-12-1971  Around 19 cases-- Very low win/lose ratio. Summary :  Disorderly conduct  , carrying concealed , unregistered vehicle , driving after revocation  , multiple tax warrants  ,  multiple small claims  "dead beat" cases.  Not John Dillenger , but not 2nd Amendment  poster boy material , either.  I don't think Staples v US  (1994)  will apply in the current case. "Clear knowledge and intent"  is likely the way the jury saw it.   An appeal will take a lot of money and a long time.    May 8th is the big day , huh?

Your way off on your case count. Closer to half that. Not to mention as a rights activist I'm going to have marks against me in their system. Doesn’t make me wrong or mean I did violate any applicable laws. Of course if you don't believe in the right to carry or right to travel you can always move to the Soviet Union or China. I'm sure they’d be happy to take you.
I'm a firm and adamant believer in the basic foundations of America and I'm willing to fight for it, I take it from your comments you would not.

As far as May 8th I haven't goten anything on that yet but I'm checking.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:  I just skimmed a bunch of case documents on another site.  Too bad Lou D. got flim/flamed into this.  He deserved better. Tag for comedy value. All sights I post on should have the same information on them. What documents are you refering to?   A good place to start:   wcca.wicourts.gov/simplecaseS...507D08render5   Search for :  David R. Olofson   DOB: 06-12-1971  Around 19 cases-- Very low win/lose ratio. Summary :  Disorderly conduct  , carrying concealed , unregistered vehicle , driving after revocation  , multiple tax warrants  ,  multiple small claims  "dead beat" cases.  Not John Dillenger , but not 2nd Amendment  poster boy material , either.

IIRC, you missed his seat belt violation in your list.

Ya know, being a WI resident (and the wife working for a lawyer), I'm not exactly unfamiliar with Ccap.  I've also done the research, and understand WI law.

Bladerunner has been pretty forthcoming on the DC and CCW issues, going so far as to post the stories of each here in this thread (you'd have known this if you actually read the thread).  Knowing that in WI one can be charged with CCW even when complying with the Federal transport laws (941.23 is a strict liability offense here), and the DC charge stemmed from open carry (theoretically legal here), I don't have a problem with either, and both are misdemeanors stemming from someone exercising a right under the WI Constitution.

If you looked far enough into my background, you might find stuff like "Speeding in excess", "Driving on a suspended licence" as well as a few judgements.  Men sometimes do stupid stuff when they're 18 or 19. *shrug*

Before continuing on this line CPK, would you care to post your info for a background check?  It's about as germane to the case at hand as Bladerunner's sales tax bill.

I don't think Staples v US  (1994)  will apply in the current case. "Clear knowledge and intent"  is likely the way the jury saw it.   An appeal will take a lot of money and a long time.

"Clear knowledge and intent" wasn't required to convict, according to the instructions given to the jury.  Any requirement for mens rae (i.e. Staples) would have resulted in an acquittal.

I suggest reading this whole thread before commenting any further.  You seem to have a profound lack of knowledge that might be cured by examining what's already been posted.
corrected

 Whatever.....

 Meanwhile , back in the real world:

 My best guess is 6 months to a year served , unless he really , really tries to play the judge during the sentence hearing.

 But , I wouldn't rule out a  'felon in possession'  charge a few years from now. Some guys just never learn.
       
 Lou Dobbs is a good man , misleading him is uncool.

 

  Transfer to Charlie Darwin's in-box .

  Tag for May 9th.

OST

Quoted:  Whatever.....  Meanwhile , back in the real world:  My best guess is 6 months to a year served , unless he really , really tries to play the judge during the sentence hearing.  But , I wouldn't rule out a  'felon in possession'  charge a few years from now. Some guys just never learn.          Lou Dobbs is a good man , misleading him is uncool.     Transfer to Charlie Darwin's in-box .   Tag for May 9th.

I can't help but comment on how you have a familiar sound to you. Don't suppose you have different names at different boards and jumped over have after having any threads locked on this subject?

But as to your accusation about me, or any of my defense team "misleading" Lou Dobbs, I have to ask on what point are you talking about? I was strait up with him and everyone else. There are things I'm not allowed to talk about by court order, but that is it. I haven't said anything untrue. If you think otherwise please enlighten us as to why and where you are getting the information. I'm sure others here are as interested in it as I am.

Quoted:  Whatever.....  Meanwhile , back in the real world

I'm trying not to feed the trolls, but damn dude; either address some points or move on.  

Tag for May 9th.

You do realize that you are unable to "tag" a thread without a team membership, correct?

Your ignorance is showing through on many levels.

Quoted: Guess what was on last night. I didn’t know they had anything planned. A lot more to this, I'm just gaged on it right now. You will flip when it comes out what they are trying to say. Think you as a gun owner are not at risk yet? You will change your mind soon. DOBBS: Every time we can smell the chamber of commerce, it makes me kind of get committed. You know what I mean? An update now on a story we first reported to you last month. LOU DOBBS TONIGHT has now learned the government is seeking an even tougher sentence than we originally expected against Army veteran and reservist David Olofson of Wisconsin. Speaking of cases difficult to understand, try this on for size. Olofson was convicted of, "transferring a machine gun" after his rifle misfired at a shooting range. The government is seeking a sentence of three-and-a-half to four years against Olofson. This Army veteran, a man with an otherwise absolutely clean record and a wife and three children. His sentence is scheduled for May 8. Now we don't know what's going on. We've been reporting on it. Bill Tucker has been out to -- to meet with Olofson or report on the story. Now the National Rifle Association's civil rights defense fund said it has this case under review. We'll, of course, keep you informed on this incredible story. Bill Tucker will be amongst those going out to Wisconsin to find out what is going on in that state. It is really an incredible story.

So that's probably parole in a year? Still, I wouldn't want to be there for one day let alone one year!

This whole case is a railroad job and an example of government corruption. That BATFE agent's testimony that 'the law doesn't make exceptions for malfunctions' shows just how far the government will go to pervert it's own laws in order to crush it's citizens. Can anyone honestly say that the machine gun ban or the NFA was written to allow the government to prosecute people for having a firearm that malfunctions?  



You have my sympathy and my support! I hope that your incarceration is short and uneventful.

height=8

Quoted:  Whatever.....  Meanwhile , back in the real world:  My best guess is 6 months to a year served , unless he really , really tries to play the judge during the sentence hearing.  But , I wouldn't rule out a  'felon in possession'  charge a few years from now. Some guys just never learn.         him     Transfer to Charlie Darwin's in-box .   Tag for May 9th.

I'm confused. I read all 54 pages of this thread, and Lou has it right on the money.
How has he been misled?
So now traffic tickets and an unpaid credit card from your past makes you a hardened criminal deserving of federal charges of MG transferring when your AR doubles?

Quoted:  Whatever.....   Meanwhile , back in the real world:  My best guess is 6 months to a year served , unless he really , really tries to play the judge during the sentence hearing.  But , I wouldn't rule out a  'felon in possession'  charge a few years from now. Some guys just never learn.   Lou Dobbs is a good man , misleading him is uncool.    Transfer to Charlie Darwin's in-box .    Tag for May 9th.

Back in the real, real world , a collections call or seatbelt ticket has *what* to do with
the ATF classifying as a machinegun for only one person , something they they have already
classified as not a machinegun ?

?

I think all we need to do is ask ourselves who would benifit if everyone dosen't keep on the subject of the thread. We all know the answer.

Quoted:  Whatever.....  Meanwhile , back in the real world:  My best guess is 6 months to a year served , unless he really , really tries to play the judge during the sentence hearing.  But , I wouldn't rule out a  'felon in possession'  charge a few years from now. Some guys just never learn.          Lou Dobbs is a good man , misleading him is uncool.     Transfer to Charlie Darwin's in-box .   Tag for May 9th.

Please lock this trolls account.

Quoted: So that's probably parole in a year? Still, I wouldn't want to be there for one day let alone one year!

The federal parole system was eliminated in 1987. AFAIK he would have to serve approx.  85% of his sentence before he could be released.

http://www.justice.gov/uspc/history.htm

On April 13, 1987, the U.S. Sentencing Commission submitted to Congress its initial set of sentencing guidelines, which took effect on November 1, 1987. Defendants sentenced for offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987 serve determinate terms under the sentencing guidelines and are not eligible for parole consideration. Post-release supervision, termed "supervised release," is provided as a separate part of the sentence under the jurisdiction of the court.

Quoted:  I don't think Staples v US  (1994)  will apply in the current case. "Clear knowledge and intent"  is likely the way the jury saw it.   An appeal will take a lot of money and a long time.

Thank you for directing me back to Staples. On a re read the interesting part is not the clarification of intent, but the clarification of § 5845 (b) provided in the notes of the majority opinion, written by Justice Thomas:

1    As used here, the terms "automatic" and "fully automatic" refer to a weapon that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger. That is, once its trigger is depressed, the weapon will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted. Such weapons are "machineguns" within the meaning of the Act.

It appears that "more than one round" is now only part of the test, and the definition of "automatically", as presented by Justice Thomas, adds significantly to the qualification.
Technically, my opinion is that the consistent stoppage of BR's rifle by jamming fails to meet this test.

Pity I'm not a lawyer.  

Quoted: Quoted:  I don't think Staples v US  (1994)  will apply in the current case. "Clear knowledge and intent"  is likely the way the jury saw it.   An appeal will take a lot of money and a long time.   Thank you for directing me back to Staples. On a re read the interesting part is not the clarification of intent, but the clarification of 5485 (b) provided in the notes of the majority opinion, written by Justice Thomas: 1    As used here, the terms "automatic" and "fully automatic" refer to a weapon that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger. That is, once its trigger is depressed, the weapon will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted. Such weapons are "machineguns" within the meaning of the Act. It appears that "more than one round" is now only part of the test, and the definition of "automatically", as presented by Justice Thomas, adds significantly to the qualification. Technically, my opinion is that the consistent stoppage of BR's rifle by jamming fails to meet this test. Pity I'm not a lawyer.

Lawyer hell, Judge...;)

Who is this troll (campperrykid) and what rock did he come out from under? This class act needs to go away for trolling.

height=8

Quoted:   The deep pocket 2nd Amendment Civil Rights organizations want clean , winable cases and squeaky clean defendants-- good citizens , good neighbors  with no court records. They don't waste our money on flakey cases.  Some folks just don't make the cut for 2nd Amendment poster boy.  height=8 Quoted:  I just skimmed a bunch of case documents on another site.  Too bad Lou D. got flim/flamed into this.He Tag for comedy value. height=8 Quoted:  Whatever.....  Meanwhile , back in the real world:  My best guess is 6 months to a year served , unless he really , really tries to play the judge during the sentence hearing.  But , I wouldn't rule out a  'felon in possession'  charge a few years from now. Some guys just never learn.         him   Anyone else say we have a troll? Do you really believe for a second, that Lou Dobbs could be easily, how did you so elegantly put it? Ahh yes "flim/flamed"??? Camppkiddy, Lou Dobbs has a team of lawyers that work for him and CNN, these lawyers are not some wet behind the ears just out of law school fools you make them off to be. They RESEARCH, in depth before allowing Lou Dobbs to air a story. Dobbs has aired, in support, of Mr. Olofson 3 times... CNN & Dobbs should have checked with your crack legal team first Camppkiddy, how foolish of us all! Don't be to hard on everyone Campper, we don't have the resources of searching online, like you do Now go troll someplace else, or post factual proof of what your ranting about.

Quoted:   The deep pocket 2nd Amendment Civil Rights organizations want clean , winable cases and squeaky clean defendants-- good citizens , good neighbors  with no court records. They don't waste our money on flakey cases.

Hit-&-run has no place where substantive discussion is warranted, & I fail to see the appropriatness of "" peppered in your comments.  Care to share your amusement w/ the rest of us?

...Some folks just don't make the cut for 2nd Amendment poster boy.       Some cases are not winable.

The overzealousness concerning both the charging & sentencing potentially indicate that certain fed.gov employees are taking a CYA approach to try to stamp out any possibility of the potential truth coming to light concerning their conduct.

Hopefully, we'll get to see where the truth is at.

When is your date with the appeals court?


Best of luck, I hope you win against the ATF Gestapo.

Quoted: When is your date with the appeals court? Best of luck, I hope you win against the ATF Gestapo.

No dates yet.

Originally we had a May 15th date for sentencing, but that got tossed. I haven't gotten any notices of any hearing yet. First we have to have a post trial motion hearing to go over a bunch of motions asking for either a dismissal or a new trial. If the Judge doesn’t like our motions then we will have a sentencing hearing. Most likely very soon after the motion hearing. It will be a tossup as to whether I have to wait it out behind bars or not. Good chance I won't though because of my background, expected short sentence, and how messy the government’s case is. Appellate court will most likely expedite the appeal and have a decision in 2-6 months. So hopefully we can have this settled one way or another by the end of this year, 3 1/2 years after it happened.

Hey Bladerunner, I was just notified about this thread and your situation, from another forum(HDForums). If I said I can't believe what's happening to you, I'd be lying. I know the BATFE can/has done some really assinine things, but this seems to take the cake!! What a crock. While I'm wading thru 54 pages of this, I wanted you to know you got one more guy in your corner. If they do it to you, they can do it to any of us. Stay strong,brother. Best wishes to you and your family. I cannot even begin to imagine what you all are going thru.

Quoted: Hey Bladerunner, I was just notified about this thread and your situation, from another forum(HDForums). If I said I can't believe what's happening to you, I'd be lying. I know the BATFE can/has done some really assinine things, but this seems to take the cake!! What a crock. While I'm wading thru 54 pages of this, I wanted you to know you got one more guy in your corner. If they do it to you, they can do it to any of us. Stay strong,brother. Best wishes to you and your family. I cannot even begin to imagine what you all are going thru.

+1.  Stomp those lying ATF bastids.

Quoted:  I just skimmed a bunch of case documents on another site.  Too bad Lou D. got flim/flamed into this.  He deserved better. Tag for comedy value.

Are you suggesting that Bladerunner set Lou Dobbs on fire?

Or were you trying to say "flim-flammed ," which is hyphenated, and actually has three "m"s instead of two?

Quoted: Quoted: I don't think Staples v US  (1994)  will apply in the current case. "Clear knowledge and intent"  is likely the way the jury saw it.   An appeal will take a lot of money and a long time. Thank you for directing me back to Staples. On a re read the interesting part is not the clarification of intent, but the clarification of § 5845 (b) provided in the notes of the majority opinion, written by Justice Thomas: 1    As used here, the terms "automatic" and "fully automatic" refer to a weapon that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger. That is, once its trigger is depressed, the weapon will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted. Such weapons are "machineguns" within the meaning of the Act. It appears that "more than one round" is now only part of the test, and the definition of "automatically", as presented by Justice Thomas, adds significantly to the qualification. Technically, my opinion is that the consistent stoppage of BR's rifle by jamming fails to meet this test. Pity I'm not a lawyer.

For the initial "offense" at the firing range, as well as in any/all subsequent BATFE tests.

Here's to hoping your opinion is right.

Sir, everytime I read this topic my blood boils.


I have a problem knowing that this nation, which was founded on freedom, is being destroyed by people in positions of trust.




Keep up the good fight, remember that the truth will eventually trump evil.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't think Staples v US  (1994)  will apply in the current case. "Clear knowledge and intent"  is likely the way the jury saw it.   An appeal will take a lot of money and a long time. Thank you for directing me back to Staples. On a re read the interesting part is not the clarification of intent, but the clarification of § 5845 (b) provided in the notes of the majority opinion, written by Justice Thomas: 1    As used here, the terms "automatic" and "fully automatic" refer to a weapon that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger. That is, once its trigger is depressed, the weapon will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted. Such weapons are "machineguns" within the meaning of the Act. It appears that "more than one round" is now only part of the test, and the definition of "automatically", as presented by Justice Thomas, adds significantly to the qualification. Technically, my opinion is that the consistent stoppage of BR's rifle by jamming fails to meet this test. Pity I'm not a lawyer.   For the initial "offense" at the firing range, as well as in any/all subsequent BATFE tests. Here's to hoping your opinion is right.

A strict reading of this definition precludes inclusion BR's malfunctioning rifle, but also precludes any burst limited firearm that has no provision for true FA.

The first instance strikes me as consistent with precedent, but not the second. The judge who concedes the application of the Supreme court's definition either has an exceedingly sharp pencil, or throws open the door to unregistered possession
of any of the 3 round limited variants (not to mention a regulatory morass vis-à-vis true FA).

I would describe it as a large rock needing an excellent attorney to throw... a poor throw lands on our foot.

In addition to BR's exhonerations, I'd like to see a couple things happen:

1) Those who submitted perjured testimony to be prosecuted

2) That BATF be held in contempt for not having established testing protocols & procedures & using make-it-up-as-we-go "procedures" in its "investigations"; that they thus be ordered to develop testing procedures & strictly adhere to them when conductin firearms evidenciary tests.

I suspect neither will occur because, re: (1) gov't never prosecutes members of the "club", & (2) slack-off laziness is still job #1 @ fed.gov

Quoted: Quoted:  Whatever.....  Meanwhile , back in the real world:  My best guess is 6 months to a year served , unless he really , really tries to play the judge during the sentence hearing.  But , I wouldn't rule out a  'felon in possession'  charge a few years from now. Some guys just never learn.          Lou Dobbs is a good man , misleading him is uncool.     Transfer to Charlie Darwin's in-box .   Tag for May 9th. I'm confused. I read all 54 pages of this thread, and Lou has it right on the money. How has he been misled? So now traffic tickets and an unpaid credit card from your past makes you a hardened criminal deserving of federal charges of MG transferring when your AR doubles?

Dobbs hasn't been mislead.  The real problem is that some people can't read.