Quoted: Quoted: GOA is funding the appeal. Gun Owners of America You could donate to them.  BR has said that he isn't taking personal donations yet. Shane Has the NRA done anything?  Serious question.

This was sent to me by someone involved in case.....

"Just to let you know since this info was missing from the thread. Olofson's new attorney is Bob Sanders, who is on the NRA Board of Directors. Sanders was praised in the GOA news release of July 2 due to his experience in these matters."

Sounds like Sandstone is a low security prison.

Hopefully he'll be safe there and won't run into any hardcore cases that got convicted of a lesser offense.

My initial introduction to this thread occurred a few days ago with an announcement in another thread that Olofson had reported to prison.  I have been lurking on this forum for a number of years, but could not resist the urge to point out a few glaring irregularities.  I have read the thread in its entirety over the last few days and come to some conclusions of my own.  Just so we’re all on the same page, I am a JBT - by arfcom standards of being a police officer - and fully believe Olofson is where he belongs.  I don’t like the way ATF accomplished their goal or the precedent they have set, which makes me a potential felon should my privately owned AR15 ever malfunction in a similar manner.  However, one can only thumb his nose at the law and law enforcement for so long before they finally catch up to him.
I have been shooting black rifles for just under a decade and vehemently disagree with any ASW bans.  I particularly have a strong distaste for our duly elected law makers indicating they are criminalizing such weapons for my benefit.  If law makers want to make police work inherently safer for the men and women in blue it stands to reason that criminalizing possession of readily concealed handguns would make much more sense.  I do not support such action.  I merely wish to convey that handguns have in the past and continue to pose a greater threat to my safety on any given day.  Don’t assign ridiculous weapons bans a subjective title that purports to make my life easy or my job safer.
Right out of the gates Olofson’s story doesn’t hold much water with me.  He reports that he is not nor has he ever been a dealer of weapons, fair enough.  He goes on to say he was contacted by local kid Robert Kiernicki.
Kiernicki: Hey, I’m calling about your AR15 for sale.
Your average person would have stated the rifle had already been sold.  The average Joe might have gone on to add that rifles can often be found at upcoming gun shows, local pawn shops, or online at reasonable prices.  Good luck buying a rifle.
Olofson: No I already sold that rifle.  BUT, I can order one for you.  
That is no way criminal, but it stinks of a sales pitch.
Olofson: Additionally, young man whom I’ve never before met, I have a rifle I would be more than happy to loan to you.  And because I so very much want you to become an avid shooter, I will give you 800 rounds of ammunition which you may shoot through my rifle without my supervision.
This behavior is certainly not criminal, but stinks to high heaven of God only knows what.  I buy ammo, go shoot, and am back to barely having enough to keep my mags full.  My wife wants to kill me for the money I spend on personally used ammunition.  I know she would kill me If I supplied 800 rounds to a friend, let alone an unknown neighborhood punk.  I am certain she would dismember me if I supplied guns and ammo to the neighborhood kids when she was the only providing income for the family.  As I recall, he was reported to be a stay at home father of three.  
Kiernicki had the weapon for a total of about four months, with the rifle periodically returning home.  Olofson initially indicated as much, but never corrected incorrect posters who raved about the weapon being out of his hands for several months.  Olofson had the rifle for an unknown length of time before he turned it over the kid a couple of days prior to the original contact with local police.  This was apparently the fourth time Kiernicki had borrowed the weapon and received free ammunition.  Another poster was blasted for suggesting that perhaps Olofson was recruiting him for a paramilitary organization.  I’m inclined to believe something along those lines, because nothing in this life is free - especially 800 rounds of 5.56.  And while I’m on the topic of 5.56, are we really going to claim that none of us have ever bought .223 at Wal Mart to run trough our 5.56 designated rifles?  The whole claim about the ATF firing ammunition that was not designed for that weapon is ridiculous.  I suppose there are technical differences, but we’ve all used .223.  If not all of us, at least a very large majority.  Most older .38's aren’t designated for +P ammo, but most of know guys who shoot it through their ancient S&W’s.
Olofson ran with the media’s portrayal of him as having a spot free record.  The reporter from Dobbs Tonight, Tucker I think, repeatedly claimed he was a straight arrow.  I didn’t see Olofson jumping in anywhere to correct that misconception.  Of course, he didn’t correct that because he didn’t believe the laws he violated were applicable to him.  He stated at one point, and inferred numerous times, that he felt those laws were unconstitutional and had no bearing on him.  This suggests to me that he felt he was not in violation of any law because HE didn’t think his rifle met HIS standard for an automatic weapon.  This accompanied by bragging about fighting and defeating criminal cases in court for himself and others based on technicalities pissed me off.  MOST cops, Whether federal, state or local, try to do the job the best they can.  Seeing someone get off a weapons charge because they didn’t cross “I’s” and dot “T’s” makes them better cops - after they get over the displeasure of having someone they caught committing a crime exonerated due to a procedural mistake.  Which brings me to my final point.
At no time did I see Olofson indicate UNDER OATH that he had no prior knowledge that his weapon did, could, or would fire more than one round with each activation of the trigger.  Nor did he indicate UNDER OATH that he was unaware that his selector switch could, would, or ever did come to rest in a “third unmarked position.”  He chose instead, to argue jurisdiction.  He chose instead, to argue that this rifle was malfunctioning.  He chose instead, to argue everything but his innocense of the crime with which he was charged.  That’s how guilty people get off the charges - most of the time.  He chose not to take the stand and present his case.  He was afraid the prosecutor would eat him alive.  I think he knew what his weapon would do and chose not to lie on the stand.  Unfortunately though, you and I don’t get to interpret the constitution or laws enacted by our federal, state, or local law makers.  I don’t get to decide that I disagree with a law and subsequently violate that law.  Well... I can do that.  I would just be ready to be arrested and prosecuted for my crimes.  
For all intents and purposes, he might have been railroaded.  However, I can adamantly tell you all if I attempt to make a (add felony here) case against you several times eventually I will arrest you for driving on a suspended license.  I will know weekly, if not daily, whether you have corrected the problem with your license and continue to arrest you for driving on a suspended license until I catch you doing the bad thing I know you are doing or until you stop driving.  One can only thumb their nose at the law and law enforcement for so long before it catches up to them.  It seems likely that the ATF wanted to make a case against him for ANYTHING.  It seems likely that Kiernicki was the tool they used to get him.  
There is no proof of his guilt or innocence in any of the above, but it just DOES NOT add up.
But then again, what the hell do I know?
Flame On!!

Oh my.

Taggity.

(Paragraphs are your friend.)

To mshroomcloudlayer:

You may or may not be right in your suspicions about David Olofson.   I wll agree that lending out a firearm to some teenager wasn't very well advised.  Yes, I agree that Olofson saying none of these laws apply to him is stupid.      And I wouldn't be giving tons of ammo away either, as you indicated.  But none of those types of things deserve a 30 month trip to ClubFed.



Maybe I can help you understand what many people (like me) feel stinks about this prosecution.
The Olympic Arms rifle in question has a documented history of recall due to problems.   The govt was not able to show any evidence that Olofson had altered it to cause it to fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger.   The ATF had to try repeatedly with their testers to finally get it to do a burst, even after their initial test determined it's just a rifle.   Then the prosecution argued that it does not matter if it would ever do it again.   I don't know how you feel about that, but that is not a machine gun.   That is a rifle that malfunctioned.   And had it happened before?   Maybe so, but  I think a machine gun is a firearm whose normal state is such that it will fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, not just when all the planets line up just right and then maybe not ever again.   Not once in a blue moon by trying all kinds of different ammo to finally force this "evidence" to give you the desired result.   And what is fair about a prosecution where the defendant is not allowed to then have his own expert witness conduct tests on the rifle??

There was unfair suppression of evidence favorable to Olofson by the prosecution.    Isn't the prosecutor duty-bound to seek justice?   Then if there is evidence the defendant wants to get admitted, why not allow it and let the jury decide if it has any weight, as our system was designed?  No, let's use some phoney tax privacy concern to get it suppressed.  The ATF, in particluar, is a rogue agency whose tactics would much better be suited to 1938 nazi Germany and the gestapo, than in the United States of America.    Amazing the jury could not see at least solid reasonable doubt.

This was a railroad job, just like you suggested.    And that is not what our nation is supposed to be about.    Is it?

Your comments sound a little like...."what goes around, comes around."   I have no problem with that, if what comes around is righteous.   I hate to see criminals get off on technicalities.   But we are a nation of laws, and when the "good guys" don't follow the rules, we become no better than the sh*t-holes of the world where law and justice for people are only dreams.

Apprently Olofson had some "history" that had pissed off the local ATF.   Ok fine.   If they think Olafson is a bad guy, then make a case.    Make a real, honest, true case against him that can stand the scrutiny of the light of day in a nation like ours.    Don't trump justice with a dirty railroad job in  the interest of victory and payback.   That's what they do in Mexico, Russia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, etc, etc.   Those ATF agents, the prosecutor, and the Judge laid our nation low with that  kangaroo court travesty.
That crap doesn't (or at least shouldn't) fly here in the USA.  I would bet there will be a reversal in this case.  


I would have liked to see him take the stand also.   If I were being tried for something I did not do, you couldn't keep me off the stand.   But just as it is not wise to talk to police, he and his atty  apparently believed he would be better off not testifying.    Everybody with any sense also knows you are very well-advised to not talk to the cops for very legitimate reasons (look up the video on the web...."Don't talk to Police.")    And every jury is instructed  NOT to infer guilt of the defendant because he invokes his right not to be complelled to be a witness against himself, yet you, a professional in the criminal justice sytem, are doing exactly that here, aren't you?

So you think Olofson is sitting right where he belongs?    Other than not liking his judgement and being suspicious of him, why based on the facts of this case (as best we can know them) do you think he ought to be in the penitentary?    Maybe you are a JBT, as you called yourself.  Ever thought about applying to ATF?     It sounds like you might fit right in.

Well Rain, the fact is I agreed with you right up until the end.  I’m far to out of shape to join the ATF and I’m pretty sure I know too much about firearms.

Olofson’s case is a true dichotomy.  I hate that the case turned a malfunctioning rifle into a machine gun.  You can tell me to pack sand about everything else, but you must believe that above all else I am a human with my own potentially felonious rifle.  On the other hand, it’s painfully obvious to me that this cat was a slippery little dirtbag who managed to avoid serious prosecution several times.  The ATF began a case against him, found a snitch to get them what they needed on him, and put the screws to him.  It would appear that they might have done some underhanded stuff in the process, but I don’t know.  I don’t pretend to know that any more than I pretend to know his guilt or innocense.  I’m just saying the guy smells really dirty to me, and being from a law enforcement background I have learned not to ignore my nose.  

As far a Russian Justice in the US, cops are only human.  If you thumb your nose at them long enough you will piss them off, and they will arrest you for every petty little thing they can.  Now before someone runs with this vendetta theme, understand me.  I am talking about bad people doing bad stuff and getting away with it right in front of you for various reasons.  I’m talking about cops like Elliott Ness who were unable to get the bad guy doing real bad guy stuff, so they picked the bad guy up as often as they could for anything they could.  I’m talking about knowing the jerk living across from the high school is selling methamphetamine, but not having probable cause to arrest him.  You stop him for failing to signal and then arrest him for not having insurance.  Every time you can.  That’s not dirty, that’s the game of cops and robbers.

I don’t know if the ATF played dirty with Olofson.  I really don’t.  I don’t appreciate the lack of  standardized testing procedures for determining the status of his firearm.  I don’t like that they apparently kept testing it until they got the results they wanted.  I don’t like that malfunctioning rifles are currently machine guns.  

Again, I don’t know if he needs to be in prison.  I’m just going with my gut.  I watched this guy fade in and out for 80 some pages tooting his horn and trying to pass himself off as a martyr.  Some of it made me laugh, other parts made me angry, and still other instances of his self righteous BS made me sick to my stomach.  And then there were the endearing qualities like his refusal to accept - or even think about accepting - donations for his cause.  Then again though, his wife indicated donations would be welcome right off the bat.  That tells me, and I’m just spit balling here, but that tells me he was putting his family through some financial hardship through this and couldn’t tarnish his name by asking for the donations others had already offered.  No, instead he left his wife to do it for him.  

It’s human nature, Rain, to assume that a person who gets called a liar, a cheat, a felon, and a danger to society should speak up for himself.  It isn’t anything new for a cop, a juror, or anyone else to harbor reservations about anyone who refuses to defend themselves in court.  He told me (and everyone else) several times a day for a couple of years that he was innocent and attempted to give evidence to support his claim, but when it mattered most Olofson sat idly by refusing to tell the 12 jurors why he didn’t do it.  

I don’t claim to be right about this guy.  I’m just expressing my opinion based on his written statements.

Sorry about that, my mouse malfunctioned causing two posts to happen with a single function of the button.hty.gif

The problem with this whole mess is that fact that, as reported a few pages ago in this thread, Olofson's gun has full auto parts in it...trigger, hammer, disconnector, and selector.  With those parts installed, I don't possibly see how you can say that hammer follow was a "malfunction"...so the whole issue of Oly's recall goes out the window.  

If we assume that the gun had full auto parts in it when ATF confiscated it (and I'm not going down the road where ATF swapped parts...someone else can deal with that), then all ATF had to do was find ammo with soft enough primers for the hammer follow to result in "full auto" fire.  Again, this is no malfunction...with full auto parts and no autosear you would expect hammer follow.

If the above is true, then the only issue becomes who put those parts in the gun...Olofson or the kid?

It still stinks that Olofson's defense wasn't allowed access to the gun...the issue of full auto parts didn't come up on this thread until well after the case was tried.  Perhaps had it been known that those parts were in the gun, the defense would have been handled differently.

Of course, if the gun DOESN'T have full auto parts as reported previously, then the whole argument is pointless.  It just seems like there were a lot of things that should have been done that weren't.

Quoted: The problem with this whole mess is that fact that, as reported a few pages ago in this thread, Olofson's gun has full auto parts in it...trigger, hammer, disconnector, and selector.  With those parts installed, I don't possibly see how you can say that hammer follow was a "malfunction"...so the whole issue of Oly's recall goes out the window.

Which of those parts is currently illegal to possess or install in an AR?  Prior to this case, without an auto sear, those parts did not constitute a machine gun.  Now they do.

Oly was originally shipping the rifles with those parts installed.  They found out later that it could cause a hammer-follow malfunction and recalled.

If we assume that the gun had full auto parts in it when ATF confiscated it (and I'm not going down the road where ATF swapped parts...someone else can deal with that), then all ATF had to do was find ammo with soft enough primers for the hammer follow to result in "full auto" fire.  Again, this is no malfunction...with full auto parts and no autosear you would expect hammer follow. If the above is true, then the only issue becomes who put those parts in the gun...Olofson or the kid?

The big issue I have with this case is that the resulting precedent is.... it didn't matter who put the parts in.  It didn't matter to the judge whether it was original Oly parts, parts that Olofson put in, parts that Kiernicki put in, or parts that the ATF put in.  Even if at the time of the range malfunction it had semi parts in it, the full auto parts were all legal parts that ATF could easily install under the "readily restorable" clause.

Maybe Olofson is getting his just rewards for past actions, maybe not.  But, the methodology used to "get him" stands to affect all of us that own ARs for sure, and maybe just about anything that has the possibility of malfunctioning and causing a double.  It all depends on whether or not ATF has an interest in "getting you".

height=8

Which of those parts is currently illegal to possess or install in an AR? Prior to this case, without an auto sear, those parts did not constitute a machine gun. Now they do. Oly was originally shipping the rifles with those parts installed. They found out later that it could cause a hammer-follow malfunction and recalled

As I recall, Oly was installing full auto parts modified to SP1 configuration...my understanding of the post a few pages back is that the gun now has UNMODIFIED full auto parts in it....not the same thing at all.

height=8

the full auto parts were all legal parts that ATF could easily install under the "readily restorable" clause.

If the parts in the gun are unmodified full auto parts, as I believe from what I read previously, then I have to disagree with your statement.  I don't think those parts would be legal.

Don't get me wrong...I agree the precident is horrible, and I agree that judge and prosecution didn't handle things appropriately.  I can't help but wonder, though...since the conviction was for TRANSFERRING a machine gun, would the defense have argued differently (and therefore the jury have seen reasonable doubt) had they known that the gun possessed unmodified full auto parts?

I guess it won't matter now, unless the verdict gets overturned and a new trial is scheduled.  Hopefully then, in light of ALL the evidence, this thing can be argued for what it is...one way or the other.

Quoted: Quoted: The problem with this whole mess is that fact that, as reported a few pages ago in this thread, Olofson's gun has full auto parts in it...trigger, hammer, disconnector, and selector.  With those parts installed, I don't possibly see how you can say that hammer follow was a "malfunction"...so the whole issue of Oly's recall goes out the window. Which of those parts is currently illegal to possess or install in an AR?  Prior to this case, without an auto sear, those parts did not constitute a machine gun.  Now they do.

Those parts have constituted a machine gun for nearly 40 years.

DT

Olofson’s case is a true dichotomy. I hate that the case turned a malfunctioning rifle into a machine gun. You can tell me to pack sand about everything else, but you must believe that above all else I am a human with my own potentially felonious rifle. On the other hand, it’s painfully obvious to me that this cat was a slippery little dirtbag who managed to avoid serious prosecution several times. The ATF began a case against him, found a snitch to get them what they needed on him, and put the screws to him. It would appear that they might have done some underhanded stuff in the process, but I don’t know. I don’t pretend to know that any more than I pretend to know his guilt or innocense. I’m just saying the guy smells really dirty to me, and being from a law enforcement background I have learned not to ignore my nose.

So...you think the charges are bullshit...but just because you don't like the guy...he belongs in prison.  So much for innocent until *proven* guilty.  

Shane

Quoted: As I recall, Oly was installing full auto parts modified to SP1 configuration...my understanding of the post a few pages back is that the gun now has UNMODIFIED full auto parts in it....not the same thing at all.

The open letter to the industry back in the 80s was to suggest to Oly (among a host of others) that they should stop selling their rifles with M16 parts and should instead sell them with SP1 modified parts.  Oly and others were originally shipping rifles with unmodified M16 parts.

If the parts in the gun are unmodified full auto parts, as I believe from what I read previously, then I have to disagree with your statement.  I don't think those parts would be legal.

From the thread in the AR15 section here on the legality of M16 parts:

"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."

height=8

From the thread in the AR15 section here on the legality of M16 parts: "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."

OK, fine.  But, in this day and age when semi-auto parts are readily available, why would you put full auto parts in an AR15?  Anyone with any experience knows that having those parts in the gun is going to result in hammer follow when the selector is in the full auto position (whether it's marked or not!).  Further, it's been amply demonstrated that hammer follow can lead to full auto fire with soft-primered ammo.  The logical conclusion, to me anyway, is that there is no reason to put those parts in an AR15 unless you are interested in deliberately inducing hammer follow/full auto fire.  It then follows that someone put those parts in the gun with that intent...and to my mind that is the issue that should have been raised at trial.  Of course, that couldn't happen since no one knew those parts were in there until afterwards.

My points are:

1.  That gun didn't "malfunction":  if it contains bone fide full auto parts, then it should hammer follow with the selector in the full auto position

2.  If it contains those parts, the only reason for them being there is to induce full auto fire.  There is no other justifiable resaon.

3.  Had the defense known of those parts, they could have argued that someone other than Olofson put them there, instead of this malfunction BS.

God, this sucks....

I searched this out when I found the following from last week posted on another site.  It may already be in the thread but I can't read everything now.

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68590

WEAPONS OF CHOICE Owner of broken rifle surrenders for 30-month sentence 'The conviction of David Olofson is a gross miscarriage of justice' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: July 02, 2008 11:30 pm Eastern © 2008 WorldNetDaily A Wisconsin man today surrendered to federal authorities to begin serving a 30-month prison term for having a broken rifle, prompting the Gun Owners of America to issue a warning about the owner's liability should any semi-automatic weapon ever misfire. "A gun that malfunctions is not a machine gun," Larry Pratt, executive director of GOA, said. "What the [federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] has done in the [David] Olofson case has set a precedent that could make any of the millions of Americans that own semi-automatic firearms suddenly the owner [of] an unregistered machine gun at the moment the gun malfunctions." Officials with Gun Owners of America told WND they met with Olofson today before he surrendered to federal authorities for his prison term. U.S. District Judge Charles Clevert had imposed the sentence after the gun in question let loose three shots at a firing range. "It didn't matter the rifle in question had not been intentionally modified for select fire, or that it did not have an M16 bolt carrier … that it did not show any signs of machining or drilling, or that that model had even been recalled a few years back," said a commentary in Guns Magazine on the case against Olofson, of Berlin, Wis. "It didn't matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer type. It didn't even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not important to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted today," the magazine said. "What mattered was the government's position that none of the above was relevant because '[T]here's no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it's a machine gun.' "No matter what the cause." "David Olofson is a victim of BATFE abuse," Pratt said. "He has been railroaded by an agency that is out-of-control." An appeal is being assembled by a legal team at the William J. Olson, P.C., law firm, supplemented by attorney Bob Sanders, whose career stretches from being assistant director of criminal investigations at BATFE to many years in private trial law, officials said. Constitutional expert Herb Titus also is counsel to the Olson law firm. WND reported earlier when Olofson, a drill instructor in the National Guard, was convicted in a federal court for illegally transferring a machine gun. The verdict came in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. An expert witness said then the decision was filled with problems. "If your semiautomatic rifle breaks or malfunctions you are now subject to prosecution. That is now a sad FACT," wrote Len Savage, a weaponry expert who runs Historic Arms LLC. "To those in the sporting culture who have derided 'black guns' and so-called 'assault weapons'; Your double barreled shotgun is now next up to be seized and you could possibly be prosecuted if the ATF can get it to 'fire more than once,'" he wrote in a blog run by Red's Trading Post. "Hey, but don't worry," Savage said. "The people testing it have no procedures in writing and the testing will be in secret." He said during an interview with Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership that Olofson had been instructing a man in the use of guns, and the student asked to borrow a rifle for some shooting practice. "Mr. Olofson was nice enough to accommodate him," Savage said. So the student, Robert Kiernicki, went to a range and fired about 120 rounds. "He went to put in another magazine and the rifle shot three times, then jammed." He said the rifle, which was subject to a manufacturer's recall because of mechanical problems at one point, malfunctioned because of the way it was made. Savage said once the government confiscated the gun, things got worse. "They examined and test fired the rifle; then declared it to be 'just a rifle,'" Savage said. "You would think it would all be resolved at this point, this was merely the beginning." He said the Special Agent in Charge, Jody Keeku, asked for a re-test and specified that the tests use "soft primered commercial ammunition." "FTB has no standardized testing procedures, in fact it has no written procedures at all for testing firearms," Savage said. "They had no standard to stick to, and gleefully tried again. The results this time...'a machinegun.' ATF with a self-admitted 50 percent error rate pursued an indictment and Mr. Olofson was charged with 'Unlawful transfer of a machinegun.'. Not possession, not even Robert Kiernicki was charged with possession (who actually possessed the rifle), though the ATF paid Mr. Kiernicki 'an undisclosed amount of money' to testify against Mr. Olofson at trial," Savage said.

Quoted: .....  It then follows that someone put those parts in the gun with that intent...and to my mind that is the issue that should have been raised at trial.  Of course, that couldn't happen since no one knew those parts were in there until afterwards.

They knew the parts were there upon reading the FTB inspection report.  But, the judge didn't care who put the parts there, so they were not allowed to use that as a defense.  Between that and not allowing Len Savage to examine the rifle, all the jury could do was ASSUME the implication that Olofson intentionally put the parts in prior to the transfer.  Thus, the only defense option for Olofson was to show that the rifle was in the same condition as it was when it came from Oly and hope that the jury would see that as a malfunction.  

My points are: 1.  That gun didn't "malfunction":  if it contains bone fide full auto parts, then it should hammer follow with the selector in the full auto position

I understand your point based on the intent of the end user.  Personally, I prefer to look at it from the intent of the designers.  The designers did not intend for the rifles to exhibit hammer follow, thus I still consider it a malfunction.  But, I do agree with you that if the end user intentionally induces the malfunction, then the fact that it is not as the designers intended is less relevant.

2.  If it contains those parts, the only reason for them being there is to induce full auto fire.  There is no other justifiable resaon.

For the most part I agree with this unless 1) it was a rifle still in the original configuration manufactured prior to knowing that it could result in hammer follow or, 2) if someone else installs the parts with the intent of getting you in trouble.

3.  Had the defense known of those parts, they could have argued that someone other than Olofson put them there, instead of this malfunction BS.

 

See above comment.

I can't speak to the validity of the charges, Shane.  I can say that a federal judge deciding that a malfunction by my rifle can be a felony is BS.  I don't think we got to see even the tip of the iceberg in this case.  

Quoted: The problem with this whole mess is that fact that, as reported a few pages ago in this thread, Olofson's gun has full auto parts in it...trigger, hammer, disconnector, and selector.  With those parts installed, I don't possibly see how you can say that hammer follow was a "malfunction"...so the whole issue of Oly's recall goes out the window.

Isn't having M16 parts in your AR15 considered illegal under ATF policy rather than written law?

Quoted: I can't speak to the validity of the charges, Shane.  I can say that a federal judge deciding that a malfunction by my rifle can be a felony is BS.

But you still think he belongs in prison because you simply don't like the way it 'smells'.

I hope you never have the opportunity to be a judge.

Shane

Quoted: I am a JBT... I don’t like the way ATF accomplished their goal or the precedent they have set, which makes me a potential felon should my privately owned AR15 ever malfunction in a similar manner.  However, one can only thumb his nose at the law and law enforcement for so long before they finally catch up to him... At no time did I see Olofson indicate UNDER OATH that he had no prior knowledge that his weapon did, could, or would fire more than one round with each activation of the trigger....   For all intents and purposes, he might have been railroaded....   There is no proof of his guilt or innocence in any of the above, but it just DOES NOT add up. ... Flame On!!

Your post boils down to "I'm a self-professed JBT."

I recognize that the theory asserted by the BATFE to get Olafson was b.s. and could happen to me (I'll cry about it then).

They couldn't get him on other things they thought he was guilty of so who cares how they got him.

Despite being a JBT I have no idea what the 5th Amendment says.

I have no problem with a citizen being railroaded by the government.

The government could not prove it's case, but what does that matter.

You know what...?  Thanks for showing me the error of my ways.  I now realize what a POS I was.  

Hi, My name is Mushroom Cloud Laying Mo Fo, Mo Fo - and I'm a recovering JBT.

I have no idea why I thought reason would ever prevail in this thread.

Quoted: Well Rain, the fact is I agreed with you right up until the end.  I’m far to out of shape to join the ATF and I’m pretty sure I know too much about firearms. Olofson’s case is a true dichotomy.  I hate that the case turned a malfunctioning rifle into a machine gun.  You can tell me to pack sand about everything else, but you must believe that above all else I am a human with my own potentially felonious rifle.  On the other hand, it’s painfully obvious to me that this cat was a slippery little dirtbag who managed to avoid serious prosecution several times.  The ATF began a case against him, found a snitch to get them what they needed on him, and put the screws to him.  It would appear that they might have done some underhanded stuff in the process, but I don’t know.  I don’t pretend to know that any more than I pretend to know his guilt or innocense.  I’m just saying the guy smells really dirty to me, and being from a law enforcement background I have learned not to ignore my nose.   As far a Russian Justice in the US, cops are only human.  If you thumb your nose at them long enough you will piss them off, and they will arrest you for every petty little thing they can.  Now before someone runs with this vendetta theme, understand me.  I am talking about bad people doing bad stuff and getting away with it right in front of you for various reasons.  I’m talking about cops like Elliott Ness who were unable to get the bad guy doing real bad guy stuff, so they picked the bad guy up as often as they could for anything they could.  I’m talking about knowing the jerk living across from the high school is selling methamphetamine, but not having probable cause to arrest him.  You stop him for failing to signal and then arrest him for not having insurance.  Every time you can.  That’s not dirty, that’s the game of cops and robbers. I don’t know if the ATF played dirty with Olofson.  I really don’t.  I don’t appreciate the lack of  standardized testing procedures for determining the status of his firearm.  I don’t like that they apparently kept testing it until they got the results they wanted.  I don’t like that malfunctioning rifles are currently machine guns.   Again, I don’t know if he needs to be in prison.  I’m just going with my gut.  I watched this guy fade in and out for 80 some pages tooting his horn and trying to pass himself off as a martyr.  Some of it made me laugh, other parts made me angry, and still other instances of his self righteous BS made me sick to my stomach.  And then there were the endearing qualities like his refusal to accept - or even think about accepting - donations for his cause.  Then again though, his wife indicated donations would be welcome right off the bat.  That tells me, and I’m just spit balling here, but that tells me he was putting his family through some financial hardship through this and couldn’t tarnish his name by asking for the donations others had already offered.  No, instead he left his wife to do it for him.   It’s human nature, Rain, to assume that a person who gets called a liar, a cheat, a felon, and a danger to society should speak up for himself.  It isn’t anything new for a cop, a juror, or anyone else to harbor reservations about anyone who refuses to defend themselves in court.  He told me (and everyone else) several times a day for a couple of years that he was innocent and attempted to give evidence to support his claim, but when it mattered most Olofson sat idly by refusing to tell the 12 jurors why he didn’t do it.   I don’t claim to be right about this guy.  I’m just expressing my opinion based on his written statements.

mshroomcloudlayer:

I don't have any problem at all with a cop who believes some scumbag is a bad guy and going after him in every way he can.   AS LONG as everything you nail him with is bonafide.    It is NOT ok to trump up a case by twisting or planting fake evidence to get the guy, because the cop thinks the ends justify the means.    That's a huge distinction, and it turns a good, aggressive, righteous cop into a dirty cheating cop who doesn't derserve to wear the badge.   Cops that stoop to dirty tactics are sinking to the level of the very scumbags they are cheating to get.   I have nothing but respect for the clean cops who do a hard job and have to operate under rules that often seem to give criminals the advantage.   But for dirty cops who perjure themselves, plant false evidence, bring false cases against someone because they believe it ultimately is justified to "get" the bad guy are POS who shame themselves and their righteous comrades.    I believe the ATF in this case, and in their history, have tarnished our justice system by stooping to dirty tactics.  What a pity.  Throwing away their integrity, honor, and professionalism for that defeats our whole system.    Still better than a lot of places, but not what the founders intended.
I think dirty cops are a small minority, but abuses still happen to a lot of people.     I think it's a small % of people it happens to, but a small % of a large population is a lot of people in numbers.
I think David Olofson is one of those people.  Your mileage may vary.

I don't have any problem with you having a feeling that there is more to the Olofson case than meets the eye here.   I have a little of that same feeling.   But based on the facts as we know them without having sat through the trial and heard all the evidence, I think this case is a stinking railroad job to do just as you have said....to "get" a guy who had pissed them off, and in the usual low traditions of  the ATF, they felt it was just fine to circumvent justice in the name of putting the hammer to the guy.   What a crock.

I agree it's human nature to speak up for yourself if you're wrongly accused, but you better than most people ought to understnad that with the reality of court tactics, sometimes it is the best course for even an innocent person to not take the stand.    I am like you....I would have my say to the jury to make sure my side was presented.   And if him not testifying is part of why you think something smells about him, I see your point.

I can appreciate your sensible approach to this matter, and mostly agree with what you have posted.  I think we do not agree 100% about what the ATF likely did to Olofson.  I think you lean toward them breaking the law to convict Olofson while I think he rigged his rifle to be a poor man's auto.  The real railroading is in being able to test and re-test a weapon until you get the desired results.  

Oh well, I appreciate your ability to remain calm and rational, Rain.  It's probably in my best interest to just move on and shut up.  Take care.

I appreciate you having the metal to state your feelings in here about the case, in spite of knowing you'd likely become a lightning rod for it.  Hope you'll continue to do so.  I didn't find any of your views to be off the wall, and who knows, the truth may well actually be closer to your gut feelings about it.

It takes some character to acknowledge that another LE agency may well have engaged in wrongful conduct, and not just rubber stamp everything about this case.   Many people in any kind of group will just circle the wagons.

It sounds like you wouldn't be a good fit for the ATF after all.....you've got your sh*t too together, and you definately would make a poor agent actually knowing something about firearms.  

Scans of affidavits, reports, etc, but no scans of the rifle and trigger group?  If the defense had access to the written, they should have access to the pics?  Or do they tell another story?

fin conn.

ugh

wtf

Quoted: I can appreciate your sensible approach to this matter, and mostly agree with what you have posted.  I think we do not agree 100% about what the ATF likely did to Olofson.  I think you lean toward them breaking the law to convict Olofson while I think he rigged his rifle to be a poor man's auto.  The real railroading is in being able to test and re-test a weapon until you get the desired results.   Oh well, I appreciate your ability to remain calm and rational, Rain.  It's probably in my best interest to just move on and shut up.  Take care.

He has had access to Full Auto M16s, and such for the better part of 20 years...he was a Drill Instructor...

I think he rigged his rifle to be a poor man's auto.

Not entirely outside the realm of possibility, but I have to ask - WHY would he do that, knowing full well how dangerous something like that is?  I can't imagine someone with his knowledge intentionally putting himself in danger of either A) seriously injuring himself, or B) giving it to someone else who could seriously injure themselves, and have to answer for it  ("Where'd you get the rifle that blew your face off, kid?  Oh, Mr. Olofson gave it to you?")

So, what's more likely?  That someone with plenty of experience with both AR-15's and M16's/M4's would purposefully build a dangerous rifle, or that someone with very little experience would try and make a rifle into "one of those machineguns" by "just changing out a few parts, like I read on the internet"?

I think he rigged his rifle to be a poor man's auto.

If it fired a burst every time you tried, it might be more plausible to believe maybe he made a poor man's auto.  But since it apparently couldn't be made to do it with any regularity, I can't believe a jury would not find reasonable doubt and acquit.  

Quoted: He has had access to Full Auto M16s, and such for the better part of 20 years...he was a Drill Instructor...

He is not old enough to have 20 years of service......   DIs do not "have access" to M16 components.....   By the time he was old enough to enlist, the A2 was the standard issue weapon.....

height=8

Isn't having M16 parts in your AR15 considered illegal under ATF policy rather than written law?

Policy and law are two different things entirely

Quoted: I think he rigged his rifle to be a poor man's auto. Not entirely outside the realm of possibility, but I have to ask - WHY would he do that, knowing full well how dangerous something like that is?  I can't imagine someone with his knowledge intentionally putting himself in danger of either A) seriously injuring himself, or B) giving it to someone else who could seriously injure themselves, and have to answer for it  ("Where'd you get the rifle that blew your face off, kid?  Oh, Mr. Olofson gave it to you?") So, what's more likely?  That someone with plenty of experience with both AR-15's and M16's/M4's would purposefully build a dangerous rifle, or that someone with very little experience would try and make a rifle into "one of those machineguns" by "just changing out a few parts, like I read on the internet"?

and then loan it to someone he barely knows.

How did this machinegun come to exist?  

simple. The MG didn't exist, the ATF knows it... at least until they jimmy rigged it themselves.

Otherwise, they'd have charged him for MFR'ing + posession. Otherwise, they wouldn't
have gone through the trouble to state specifically that a malfunctioning semi-auto IS
an MG.  Otherwise, they *would* have allowed examination of the rifle by the defense's
expert.

Quoted:and then loan it to someone he barely knows.

Outside of a range or hunting situation I'd never lend a firearm to anyone. Even then he'd have to be someone I knew very well.

Quoted: I think he rigged his rifle to be a poor man's auto. Not entirely outside the realm of possibility, but I have to ask - WHY would he do that, knowing full well how dangerous something like that is?  I can't imagine someone with his knowledge intentionally putting himself in danger of either A) seriously injuring himself, or B) giving it to someone else who could seriously injure themselves, and have to answer for it  ("Where'd you get the rifle that blew your face off, kid?  Oh, Mr. Olofson gave it to you?") So, what's more likely?  That someone with plenty of experience with both AR-15's and M16's/M4's would purposefully build a dangerous rifle, or that someone with very little experience would try and make a rifle into "one of those machineguns" by "just changing out a few parts, like I read on the internet"?

After they checked the rifle they said it was NOT a machine gun as it did not fire multiple times. When this was said the ATF checked it again, and got it to fire multiple times with single pull. How many test that took is not stated, or what they did to get it to do it is not stated by the ATF.

Quoted: Quoted:and then loan it to someone he barely knows. Outside of a range or hunting situation I'd never lend a firearm to anyone. Even then he'd have to be someone I knew very well.

Me too.  I still don't understand why he loaned the gun to the kid.

Loaning out the gun is irrelevant to the legal issues in this case. It's like saying if he never owned an AR in the first place, he never would ha ve been convicted. or saying, if a person never got out of bed, the wouldn't have been hit by the bus.

I think the ATF never charged him with possesion of a MG because they couldn't prove it. They managed a conviction of transfer because the Prosecutor lied to the Judge to get evidence suppressed and the Judge ignored precident rulings from other district judges on some of the same issues.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:and then loan it to someone he barely knows. Outside of a range or hunting situation I'd never lend a firearm to anyone. Even then he'd have to be someone I knew very well. Me too.  I still don't understand why he loaned the gun to the kid.

IIRC it was on three or four occasions for a total of several months.

Quoted: Loaning out the gun is irrelevant to the legal issues in this case. It's like saying if he never owned an AR in the first place, he never would ha ve been convicted. or saying, if a person never got out of bed, the wouldn't have been hit by the bus. I think the ATF never charged him with possesion of a MG because they couldn't prove it. They managed a conviction of transfer because the Prosecutor lied to the Judge to get evidence suppressed and the Judge ignored precident rulings from other district judges on some of the same issues.

It wasn't just loaning the gun that ended up with BR being convicted. BR from day one did just about everything else wrong to get himself jammed up.

I do think that his appeal will be successful and sent back for retrial or hopefully the AUSA will decline to retry him.

Quoted: I can appreciate your sensible approach to this matter, and mostly agree with what you have posted.  I think we do not agree 100% about what the ATF likely did to Olofson.  I think you lean toward them breaking the law to convict Olofson while I think he rigged his rifle to be a poor man's auto.  The real railroading is in being able to test and re-test a weapon until you get the desired results.   Oh well, I appreciate your ability to remain calm and rational, Rain.  It's probably in my best interest to just move on and shut up.  Take care.

Damn, I really wanted to ask you this:

What will you do when the order comes down to confiscate the firearms of US citizens?

height=8

I think the ATF never charged him with possesion of a MG because they couldn't prove it. They managed a conviction of transfer because the Prosecutor lied to the Judge to get evidence suppressed and the Judge ignored precident rulings from other district judges on some of the same issues.

That makes no sense.  In order to be convicted of transferring a MG, he obviously had to possess the MG first.  How can you transfer something you don't first possess yourself?  Seems to me the could have charged him with possession if they had wanted to...I have no idea why they didn't.

It makes sense if you believe the ATF's case had serious holes in it to begin with. Easier to go after one charge they can swindle by the judge than one they might have a harder time getting a conviction. The only evidence they might have to show Olfson possesed an auto is the testimony from a paid informant. That doesn't go well with juries.

All they needed to get a conviction for transfer was to show the gun meat the definition of a MG. Which they did. They just couldn't prove who made the gun a MG but they could show it who it was transfered from. Wala! Conviction.

height=8

It makes sense if you believe the ATF's case had serious holes in it to begin with. Easier to go after one charge they can swindle by the judge than one they might have a harder time getting a conviction. The only evidence they might have to show Olfson possesed an auto is the testimony from a paid informant. That doesn't go well with juries. All they needed to get a conviction for transfer was to show the gun meat the definition of a MG. Which they did. They just couldn't prove who made the gun a MG but they could show it who it was transfered from. Wala! Conviction.

Sorry, I can't buy that.  You can't transfer something you don't possess in the first place.  That was my point all along.  Either the gun was always an MG, in which case Olofson both possessed it and transferred it, or it was modified to become an MG, in which case you could argue who did it...Olofson or the kid.  But logically (and maybe that's where my problem lies), you simply cannot transfer something to someone else that you don't first have in your possession.

I think we're playing semantic games, and making circular arguments.  The case was messed up from the beginning, and the fact that ATF witheld evidence makes it very hard to understand what really happened.

Quoted: Sorry, I can't buy that.  You can't transfer something you don't possess in the first place.  That was my point all along.  Either the gun was always an MG, in which case Olofson both possessed it and transferred it, or it was modified to become an MG, in which case you could argue who did it...Olofson or the kid.  But logically (and maybe that's where my problem lies), you simply cannot transfer something to someone else that you don't first have in your possession. I think we're playing semantic games, and making circular arguments.  The case was messed up from the beginning, and the fact that ATF witheld evidence makes it very hard to understand what really happened.

They couldn't charge him with possession because they did not sieze it from Olofson.  They siezed it from Kiernicki.  They could have charged Kiernicki with possession, but they weren't interested in him, so they offered him the deal of "turn informant and we won't charge you".