User Panel
|
|
|
That makes sense...I hadn't thought of the fact that they didn't take the gun from Olofson himself. Now I understand the reasoning behind the the charge they selected. |
|
|
A trial isn't a free-for-all where the defense gets to introduce whatever evidence and testimony they choose to. The judge decides what evidence, witnesses and defense he/she will allow the jury (if a jury trial) to hear. The jury must apply the law as instructed and decide the case only upon the testimony, exhibits etc. admitted into evidence.
D.O. should have kept his mouth shut from the day he became aware his rifle had been seized. Some of the “innocent” statements he made helped convict him at trial. D.O. was convicted of violating USC 922(o). The AUSA only needed to establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" the following in order to obtain a conviction. The jury agreed that the government met the burden of proof and convicted D.O. of the charge. 1. The gun was a machinegun 2. DO unlawfully transferred the machinegun 3. DO was not a licensed dealer or licensed manufacturer 4. The gun was not registered in the NFA database USC Section 922. Unlawful acts (a) It shall be unlawful - (1) for any person - ........................................... (o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. (2) This subsection does not apply with respect to - (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes |
|
Has it been documented anywhere that Kiernicki was in fact paid? Because I read the trial transcript, and that detail was not given to the jury, and I thought it had to be. |
|
|
I think most everyone knows that a trial is not a free for all, and the jury is instructed as to what the law is by the judge, and how they are to perform their duty. But it is also true that the jury decides what the FACTS of the case are, from the evidence presented, and what weight each piece of evidence should be given. I believe in this case (from what I know of it based on the limited knowledge of the facts that most everyone here has), that the ATF and prosecutor played a dirty game of twisting what the intent of the law as to what constitiutes a machine gun. And the judge conducted an unfair trial. Where your wheels fell off is #1. It was a malfunctioning rifle, not a MG. But the prosecutor was able to play word games with the definition of what a machine gun is and got the jury to believe if it EVER fired a burst one tiime, then forever after it is now a machine gun. By this, and suppressing defense evidence on false grounds of tax privacy concerns, and not allowing the defense to have their own expert examine the rifle and report those findings to the jury to let them hear another view, a travesty was perpetrated on Olofson by ATF JBT's, the Asst. US Atty, and a piss-poor judge. How do you convince a jury that it is a MG when it gave a burst, and on the next try it doesn't? Remember how the prosecutor asserted that it didn't matter if it would do it more than once? Then on the next try where it doesn't fire more than one round with a single trigger pull.....now it's a rifle again. Oh, then if they keep trying and can get it do a burst again finally....is it now a MG again? (Not that I ever saw that it did it more than one time under the govt's "testing"). What a load of crap calling THAT a machine gun. So why could a jury not find a mountain of reasonable doubt about a rifle like that being defined as a machine gun? Because there are a lot of boneheads that don't have a functioning brain. It's too bad there was not someone on that jury who could see through the sham put on by the govt, and invoke a simple tool called jury nullification. No, don't tell the judge or anyone else that's what you're doing. Judges and prosecutors won't like that, and they'll get red faced and nasty. Jury nullification is when a jury calls bull, and refuses to convict in the interest of justice. This is from Wikipedia....go read the whole thing there. Jury nullification would have been very appropriate in this case...... JURY NULLIFICATION: Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision, in other words "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."[3] Jury nullification is more specifically any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury, acquitting a criminal defendant despite the defendant's violation of the letter of the law. This verdict need not disagree with the instructions by the judge concerning what the law is, but may disagree with an instruction, if given by the judge, that the jury is required to apply the law to the defendant if certain facts are found. Although a jury's refusal relates only to the particular case before it, if a pattern of such verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of disabling the enforcement of the statute. "Jury nullification" is thus a means for the people to express opposition to an unpopular legislative enactment. The jury system was established because it was felt that a panel of citizens, drawn at random from the community, and serving for too short a time to be corrupted, would be more likely to render a just verdict, through judging both the accused and the law, than officials who may be unduly influenced to follow merely the established law. Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one's peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices. Despite perceived righteous applications of jury nullification, this verdict anomaly can also occur simply as a device to absolve a defendant of culpability. Sympathy, bias or prejudice can influence some jurors to wholly disregard evidence and instruction in favor of a sort of "jury forgiveness." “ I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution. ” —Thomas Jefferson, 1789 letter to Thomas Paine “ The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. ” —John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court |
|
|
I'm aware of all the arguments that were made or at least written about in this thread. The bottom line is the judge didn't buy the legal arguments and the jury didn't buy the defense arguments and evidence that was presented. You're making the same mistake D.O. made. Juries rarely make the fine line distinctions you've made. |
|
|
What arguments? The vast majority, if not the entirety, of the defense's arguments and evidence were suppressed. Olofson was convicted of transferring a machinegun, yet the judge refused to allow the trial to even explore the truth of whether the rifle was actually a machine gun when he transfered it. Isn't that kind of a salient and vital point in establishing whether Olofson actually committed the offense? Why transferring? Because the ATF knew they couldn't get him on manufacturing - because they knew that in reality he didn't actually convert the rifle into an MG by the existing legal precedent (the one before the case ruling, that is) - and Kernicki had the rifle when it was seized. The more I think about this, the more I'm wondering if the judge was less crooked than we are suspecting. It almost seems like he was feeling some highly unlawful pressure behind the scenes from somewhere (where? I dunno...), and in order to assist Olofson in a behind-the-back way, significantly 'overplayed' his fuck-Olofson-over role so that there was no chance David wouldn't win on appeal or get a second trial. The way he handled evidence and blatantly ignored SCOTUS rulings just is starting to scream 'setup' to me, but the only result would be a benefit to Olofson. |
|
|
That's a question the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals will decide. A three member panel of the Circuit Court has already denied a motion to stay his sentence pending appeal. |
|
|
Well, you're right about how it actually DID go, unfortunately. Just goes to show, if you give the government half a chance to abuse you, they likely will. |
||
|
Fail. It takes more than just being a police officer to be a JBT. Even by "arfcom standards." You might try the BotS forum (Brothers of the Shield). It's where I go when I want to learn, as well as discuss, elements of police procedure or the police mindset. It's staffed by your fellow LEOs, EMS/EMTs, and FFs. It's participated in almost without exception by LEOs (maybe 90%?). A few may be "JBT-ish" or exhibit JBT-ish behavior at times, but far and away, the vast majority are not.
You don't need to like the guy to love freedom, you only need be willing to "guard even [your] enemy from oppression." "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine If you don't like David, I can live with that. Hell, I'm a bit put-out with him for being so nonchalant in his defense, which negatively affected his freedoms (which established a precedent that can now reach to myself). But at the same time, I always respected his right to conduct his own defense as he saw fit, even if I didn't agree with it.
Is that because you think they are unconstitutional (has bearing later), or just a bad idea?
I know which way you lean (because I've read your whole post), and you may be right about that, but is this any different than folks who join the Cult of Suppressors? I've talked to a guy before about a Beretta CX4 Storm (back when I thought it might be cool to pick one of those up) and it turned out that it'd already been sold. But did we stop there? No. While there are a lot of gun owners in my town of a quarter-million people, there aren't many gun enthusiasts (mostly Fudds). So when one gun enthusiast comes across another, there is usually more talking (I'm also a political enthusiast, and do the same thing when talking politics with like-minded individuals). We ended up talking about WAY more than one would expect, for a [potential] gun-buyer and a gun-seller, when the gun seller no longer had the gun. The guy has like six suppressors, and offered to let me put rounds them via a couple of his NFA firearms. We intended to get together to shoot on several occasions, but various conferences and such on each of our ends got in the way, and that's seemed to have fallen to the back-burner for each of us.
I have loaned out weapons before, albeit to people I trusted, and for much shorter lengths of time. However, I work in a building with 100-200 employees, and not one other "gun person." A colleague has expressed interest in obtaining a firearm, and I have offered to loan him a .22LR pistol (for an indeterminate amount of time). I rarely/never shoot it, so it's not like I'm out anything. If a rash of shootings strikes the city, and a .22LR pistol is to blame, rest assured that I'll ask for it back.
Even so, is there anything inherently illegal with that?
Well, first of all, they're not reciprocal. Second, your analogy is a bit flawed. Suspend your disbelief for a second and ask yourself this, instead: "If ATFE were to run +P ammo through your 'ancient S&W' and get it to double, would you be pissed?"
"The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face." -- Justice Potter Stewart (1915-1985), Walker v. Birmingham, 1967 "When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all." -- Justice William O. Douglas Now, I agree with you when you say that he should perform his act of civil disobedience and then expect to have to pay for it. I, however, do not agree that he should have to do so.
Why is that? It's a "technicality" for a reason. He got hammered in fed court on "technicalities," as well (Fed Rules of Crim Procedure, IIRC). It's a sword that cuts both ways. Are you equally outraged that the fed court dinged him on "technicalities," as well?
"The critical point is that the Constitution places the right of silence beyond the reach of government." -- Justice William O. Douglas Perhaps you are right, though.
No flaming from me; just discourse. |
|||||||||||
|
So just because other parts are available, no one should want to do it? Maybe fewer people would want to risk actually doing it, but that's different than whether they would want to do it. My understanding (from others, as I don't own any) is that the go-fast parts have a reputation as being more durable than the semi parts. Also, it would be interesting to know if FTB, during their first test of Olofson's rifle, knew which parts were in it, when they still declared it "just a rifle"....... Now everyone here should think about the implications of that for a minute. |
||
|
For a point.
I don't think we know what fucking parts were in the rifle during testing. It should have been disassembled and shown during the trial. What a crap of shit. |
|
Yes. ATF policy = "illegal," while some actual case law says "not illegal." For whatever it may or may not be worth, ATF did not rewrite their policy in light of the actual case law. (nor are they necessarily required to for anything short of a SCOTUS ruling; it's just interesting) |
||
|
Bingo. On all counts. |
|
|
So is it ATF's position that everyone who purchased one of the Oly rifles in question, and did not return it per the recall, is presently in possession of an unregistered MG? If they really wanted to be asses, and the Oly fire hadn't destroyed the records in question, couldn't they subpoena the list of everyone who returned their rifle for repair per the recall and prosecute all these people for [at one time] possessing an unregistered MG? That is the implication of "the gun was always an MG."
That is what ATF didn't want to get into. I wonder if Olofson could [theoretically] sue Kiernicki for "the pain and suffering caused by [illegally] modifying his semi-automatic AR-15 into an unregistered MG" (or somesuch)..... Since ATF refuses to prosecute the "making," this could be the next-best thing? Also, a lower standard in civil suits, and possibility of dragging more stuff in?
We are. We are forced to , however, because ATF is playing semantic games, and making circular arguments, with the Code, and their policy interpretations.
The fact that ATF withheld evidence makes the case fundamentally-flawed and un-American. |
|||||
|
Defense was not allowed to touch, video, or photograph the gun. Len Savage was allowed an opportunity to look at it on the day of his testimony, and then only for a few moments. ATF removed the rear pushpin and broke the gun open, that's it. No removal of the BCG was allowed. Prosecution provided as evidence three, highly edited clips of the gun firing, along with the written reports. All related outtakes ceased to exist before trial (destroyed/erased). I have some old photos of the gun, but nothing of the internals. All they do is confirm that there was no autosear hole drilled in the lower. ETA: If the ATF were to have tried to prove manufacture, they would have had to allow independent forensic testing of the components for tool marks and fingerprints. As it stands, Olofson requested those tests anyway. Because the charge was "transfer" not "manufacture", the prosecution sought to suppress/disallow this testing, and the judge agreed. Hard to provide a defense to prosecution when the chief piece of evidence against you is, in essence, a secret and off limits to you. |
|
|
The fact that Kiernicki was previously a [paid?] ATF informant is too convenient. The logical conclusion is that they didn't have to offer him any deal of "turn informant and we won't charge you" because he was their informant from Day1. If they were to have charged Olofson with mfg, instead of merely transferring, there was a higher likelihood that this would have come out. |
||
|
Is there a link or information on this fact? I must have missed it. |
|||
|
No, you didn't miss it. It's not there.
The problem with some of these posts is that people seem to just want to make up their own facts. There is no indication that Witness Robert Kiernicki was a confidential informant. That is discoverable information. That would have been pointed out to the jury at the trial, as that is a form of impeachment. In fact, the Assistant U.S. Attorney would have been the one bringing that out in direct examination to draw the sting. The defense would have crossed examined him on that point to impeach his testimony. None of that happened. |
|
The whole trial seems weird to me, hard to know what to believe. |
|
|
Even if Robert Kiernicki was not a paid informant, it is obvious he testified against DO to keep from being prosecuted for posssession of a MG as it was in his possession when it first malfunctioned and was seized from him at the gun range.
|
|
Go back to page one, the criminal complaint:
I don't know if this is a paid informant paid in cash, or a cop wannabe paid in getting to play cop, but something in this statement fails my sniff test big time. |
||
|
If there was a deal for Kiernicki to testify in exchange for having charges dismissed, or for having no charges filed against him, that would likely need to be disclosed. Thus far, I have seen no evidence of that. Furthermore, that too would have been addressed in front of the jury during the trial to impeach his testimony. That is completely absent from the trial transcript that is available online.
If Kiernicki was concerned that charges could be filed against him, he could have invoked. That most likely would have led to some type of immunity agreement in which the prosecution would agree that anything he said while testifying would not be used against him to prosecute him. That would be limited to his statements while testifying at trial. Again, we have no evidence of that. That too would be relevant to impeach his testimony. An M16 trigger, M16 hammer, M16 disconnector, and M16 selector were put in the Olympic Arms AR15. If Kiernicki put the parts in the gun to get it to fire full auto, he had ample opportunity to dispose of the gun and/or the parts before it was seized. The gun was not seized when the Berlin Police officer initially contacted him at the range after the report of full auto gunfire. Kiernicki was able to leave that location with the AR15. If he put those parts in the gun, he had time to get rid of the gun and/or remove the M16 parts and get rid of them. It was not until sometime later that the police re-contacted him and seized the Olympic Arms AR15. The Berlin Police Department contacted the ATF to report the incident. An ATF Agent requested that they impound the firearm. The Berlin Police did so. The argument could be made that if Kiernicki was the one who put the parts in the gun to make it fire automatically, that he had plenty of time to get rid of the gun or the M16 parts. By not doing so, one could argue that shows a lack of consciousness of guilt. The defense chose not to defend the case by arguing or suggesting that the M16 parts were installed in the gun by Kiernicki or someone other than Olofson. They did not even argue that the prosecution failed to prove that Olofson put the parts in the gun prior to transferring it to Kiernicki. Instead, they defended the case by asserting that the gun in question was not a machinegun. They argued that the gun's ability to fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger was a malfunction. The finders of fact, the jury, did not find that to be persuasive. |
|
The date of the violation was July 13, 2006. Berlin Police talked to Kiernicki on that date. ATF Agents spoke to him to follow up on that investigation. They obtained information from him during the course of the investigation which they deemed to be reliable. The affidavit for the criminal complaint (not a deposition) was dated November 17, 2006. The "past . . . reliable statements" referenced were from the investigation prior to November 17, 2006. |
|||
|
That combined with the BS from the ATF, prosecutor and the judge made this case unwinable in that court room. Should be more than enough to win an appeal but stranger things have happened. |
|
|
Some interesting information from World Net Daily....
By Bob Unruh © 2008 WorldNetDaily A gun expert who testified against the government when David Olofson was on trial for loaning to an acquaintance a gun that misfired now says the government is punishing him for that testimony. The allegation comes from Len Savage, who runs Historic Arms LLC and works with antique and historic weapons as well as weapons design and parts for gun makers. His testimony in the Olofson case, in Berlin, Wis., harshly criticized the government's weapons testing procedures. In that case, the defendant was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in jail for loaning a rifle that misfired, letting off three bullets at one time. The government then classified it a machine gun, and convicted Olofson of "transferring" such a weapon. He surrendered to federal authorities just a few weeks ago to begin serving his term, 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 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." When U.S. District Judge Charles Clevert imposed the sentence, a commentary in Guns Magazine said, "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 "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." Savage told WND that in the short time since the trial, one of the government witnesses against Olofson within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was transferred to a position of overseeing Savage's work. Now a decision by that agency could cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars, he said. He said he recently submitted to the federal agency a proposed part for an existing line of legal machine guns, a part that would convert the weapons to operate with ammunition that costs 1 or 2 cents per shell, instead of 25 cents or more. Savage told WND he submitted the part to the BATFE, even though it technically was not a gun, and was stunned to get a response that not only was his repair part a gun, it was a machine gun and he had only hours to "register" it properly. And all it took was some metal, a length of chain, some duct tape and some plastic wire ties for the agency to make his gun part operate in that fashion, he said he was told. "The materials [BATFE] added converted the firearm submitted by Historic Arms, LLC into a machine gun; therefore, the materials constitute a machine gun receiver, a machine gun, or a conversion device," Savage responded to John Spencer, chief of the agency's Firearms Technology Branch, in a letter about the situation. Reviewing the agency's modifications to his gun part that allowed it to fire automatically, Savage agreed. Sure, he said, that's what happens when you add the components of an automatic weapon to any part such as his. "If the criteria FTB applied to the testing of our latest submission was applied to testing the many caliber conversion uppers that are sold at retail with no restrictions, such as the .22 long rifle MAC upper made by 'Flemming,' (1) all of them would fire in fully automatic mode until the ammunition supply was exhausted, (2) there would be no way for the shooter to stop fire," he wrote. Officials with the BATFE told WND they were investigating the claims, but could not respond immediately. "The choice of FTB to install several versions of a 'conversion device' in order to induce full auto fire are clear and reliable evidence that they were contrived to deny my constitutional rights," he wrote in a letter to the agency. He said the issue is similar to that of the Olofson case. There, the government's first test of the rifle showed it to be just that, a rifle. But the agents prosecuting the case weren't satisfied, and demanded another test using a special ammunition, which did trigger a malfunction and an instance of multiple fire, he said. In his case, he told WND the multiple modifications to his gun part clearly reveal the agency's message that no one ever should testify against it. "[The] enforcement officer ... was assigned to a position of authority over me five months after testifying against him in US v. Olofson," Savage wrote. "This appearance of impropriety is clear to anyone, the onus is on FTB at this point," he said. "The submitted firearm was not made from a machine gun, is not a machine gun, and is my property, that I want returned immediately," he said. At an online forum on weapons issues, the comments were one-sided. "Uh-oh. I have plastic ties and duct tape, and a semi-auto rifle. There may be an old chain somewhere in the yard or the basement," one anonymous contributor said. Savage told WND it was simply the result of "vindictiveness" on the part of the federal agency. Savage, who holds a federal license to make guns of all types, said, "This is what they do to anybody who speaks about against them." "I know what this is," he said. "Retribution." Savage had been outspoken about the Olofson case from the beginning. 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. |
|
Wasn't it usual practice back in the times when that Oly rifle was built for AR manufacturers to put M16 parts in AR-15s? Isn't that part of DO's contention that the gun came from Oly with those parts?
|
|
Olofson himself has stated in this thread that he replaced the original parts that were in the gun after they wore out. He has stated he replaced them with DPMS AR15 parts. I believe he estimated that he did this in 1994 approximately. See: Pg. 2, post on 11-25-06, 6:43:01 PM; Pg. 5, post on 11-29-06, 11:27:40 AM. |
|
|
PDF's of the ATF responses are available at:waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/07/duct-tape-plastic-ties-and-chains.html FWIW Len Savage submitted an upper, not a receiver, for review. Does this mean that if I add chains, duct tape, wire ties, bubble gum, a shoestring, etc to an upper I'll have a machine gun? |
|
|
What Amateur posted is mostly what I was referring to. Also that both David O. and Len Savage have posted/written about ATF paying Kiernicki for his testimony in the Olofson case. That's an interesting bit of sleuthing with the dates...... I hadn't picked up on that. And while technically not a lie, that's an interesting bit of wordsmithing from SA Keeku. She *could* have worded it "earlier in this case" and been more accurate, but chose to word it the way she did. Either it was a perfectly innocent case of misleading wording, or it was intentionally vague to suggest that Kiernicki had a longer history of reliability than he actually did. Regardless, it misled me. |
||||
|
Could this be introduced as evidence of the "typical" testing procedures used at BATFE? Seriously!!!! |
||
|
This is where I really miss not being a lawyer... The first line of the affidavit is "JODY M. KEEKU, being duly sworn, deposes and states as follows:" Evidently where one deposes is not necessarily a deposition. Humor aside, what you have then, if I read this correctly, is someone basing the veracity of testimony not on past experience but on that testimony itself. Basically, "I give this testimony extra weight because I believe it." Sweet. Are you involved enough to be certain this case was Kiernicki's only association as an informant, or are you just assigning this possibility from the dates given? |
|
|
|
This entire shenanigan is infuriating - to the point that it makes me want to WEEP for America.
I've heard some crazy stuff about GOA in the past, but I am joining tonight. Does anyone know when additional appeals will be filed? |
|
Wow. I didn't expect to see this from the GOA.
|
|
|
This shit makes me sad to draw a federal government paycheck.
|
|
I emailed the NRA and asked why they were silent on this I got no response. |
||
|
And you're surprised by this? The NRA is big into the media stuff but when it comes to really doing anything, they are never around. GOA has really earned my respect by stepping to the plate to help Mr. Olofson. I hope they jam it in the ass of the BATFU hard before it's over. I'd love to see this one go to SCOTUS. Mike |
|||
|
This is the question at hand no one is asking. If you went to say Cabela's, legally bought a new AR-15, along with a few boxes of ammunition, went to your car, and drove to the public range to shoot it, and in the process had it malfunction, go into full auto and do a 30 round mag dump, would you be doing a 30 month strech at the Crowbar Hilton? The answer is no. Now if you took the gun home, fucked with it, put in a happy switch, along with other various M-16 components, then "loaned it to a friend" for months, had him have the same thing happen......... Well????
|
|
Ummm...I would expect that if it was reported to LEO, it would be seized. Depending on their firearms expertise, they might call BATFE. But then again, I'm in NY where you are not going to see legal NFA auto's. AZ different story. Maybe if the BATFE written guidelines clearly indicated a malfunction resulting in multiple discharges is not grounds for prosecution? And then, maybe..... Who knows? There are so many things I dislike about this case...limiting the defense, not charging manufacturing, not charging posession. |
||
|
Today? Probably not. But what about four or five years down the road, and with a BATFE under President Obama, Vice President [Hillary] Clinton, and Attorney General [John] Edwards? In all fairness, I think you're kind of missing the point with the second question. Sure, someone doing things that way will more easily come onto BATFE's radar. But it's kind of a moot point when you or I could do things the first way (the Cabela's route) and FTB could take it into their little workshop and do things the second way (fuck with it, put in a happy switch, along with various other M-16 components) and you still end up at the Crowbar Hilton. "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." -- Thomas Paine |
|
|
From WaronGuns: http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/07/olofson-incarceration-update.html
From Len Savage: On Monday I received a collect call from David Olofson. David says he is doing well. He was assigned to the prison law library and does duties as teachers aide, and helps other convicts look up the subject laws involving their cases. He tells me he helped three so far. He has been receiving correspondence regularly and he enjoys it. He was disappointed at the level of censoring, and his family photos keep getting sent back to his family. David remarked at the sub-standard food. He gave me an example that when they serve ground beef, it means it includes beef byproducts like gristle, kidney, etc. He said if that is the worst he has to deal with he will manage just fine. David is very concerned for his family, his wife could use some encouragement. The fact is his family is getting the worst of the punishments according to David. His wife gets up at 4:00am to gather the children together so she can still work, as they have a home, and to make ends meet. As a side note please give David's mailing address again. If possible a link to GOA website for those who would like to help save the family home during his incarceration. "De Oppresso liber" to liberate the oppressed... Gladly: David R. Olofson 08632089-K1 Federal Correctional Institute PO Box 1000 Sandstone, MN 55072 From me: If you can spare 10, 20, or 25 bucks a month to help this guy pay his mortgage, please do it. http://www.gunowners.org/olofson.htm If we do not stand up for each other, nobody will. |
|
That 'practice' still happens today. Century is currently selling an entry level ($599) AR15 that uses modified M16 internals. |
|
|
That argument is moot because it is strictly he said, they said. Was there any physical evidence presented to show the ATF put components in the rifle to convict him other than him, or his defense saying so? Semi auto weapons can, and in fact do, go into full auto because of malfunctions caused by nothing the owner/operator did. I've seen it myself with Ruger 10/22's, Colt 1911's, and several others. No one went to jail over it. There are simply too many other matters in this case to take into consideration. I'm not sticking up for the ATF, but saying there was a lot more on the plate here than was dished out by he or Lou Dobbs in the CNN piece. |
|
|
Me as well. On both sides. |
|
|
When the judge does not even allow the Defense to perform it's own examination and test the very evidence used to convict him, how can they know? I have never heard of a trial where the defense is NOT ALLOWED to have their own expert have his chance with the evidence and give his opinion on that evidence to the jury. Is this a thing that depends on the rules of procedure in a particular court...fed, state, etc.? Any lawyers who can comment on that? |
|
|
Big +1 |
||
|
I don't care if it IS some kind of de facto rule, it's a fucking stick in the eye to the right to examine and be confronted with the evidence presented against you. Anybody up for ordering a big batch of FREE OLOFSON bumper stickers? |
||
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.