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

height=8

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".

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

Quoted: 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.

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.

oops my browser malfunctioned...

Quoted: 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

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

Quoted: 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.

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.

Quoted: 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.

Quoted: What arguments?  The vast majority, if not the entirety, of the defense's arguments and evidence were suppressed.

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.

Quoted: Quoted: 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.   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.

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.

Quoted: 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.

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.

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.

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.

I have been shooting black rifles for just under a decade and vehemently disagree with any ASW bans.

Is that because you think they are unconstitutional (has bearing later), or just a bad idea?

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 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 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.

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.

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.

Even so, is there anything inherently illegal with that?

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.

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?"

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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!!

No flaming from me; just discourse.

Quoted: From the thread in the AR15 section here on the legality of M16 parts: <snip> 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?

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.

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

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)

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.

Bingo.  On all counts.

Quoted: 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,

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."

or it was modified to become an MG, in which case you could argue who did it...Olofson or the kid.

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?

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.

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 case was messed up from the beginning, and the fact that ATF witheld evidence makes it very hard to understand what really happened.

The fact that ATF withheld evidence makes the case fundamentally-flawed and un-American.

Quoted: 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?

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.

Quoted: 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".

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.

Quoted: Quoted: 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". 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.

Quoted: 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.

Quoted: 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.

Go back to page one, the criminal complaint:

"In particular, I believe Robert J. Kiernicki to be truthful and reliable because in the past he has provided reliable statements to City of Berlin Police Department officers and to ATF agents."  ~From the sworn deposition of Special Agent Jody M. Keeku.

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.

Quoted: Quoted: 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. Go back to page one, the criminal complaint: "In particular, I believe Robert J. Kiernicki to be truthful and reliable because in the past he has provided reliable statements to City of Berlin Police Department officers and to ATF agents."  ~From the sworn deposition of Special Agent Jody M. Keeku. 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.

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.

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.

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?

Quoted: 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.

Originally Posted By Hard Rock: 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.

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?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Go back to page one, the criminal complaint: "In particular, I believe Robert J. Kiernicki to be truthful and reliable because in the past he has provided reliable statements to City of Berlin Police Department officers and to ATF agents."  ~From the sworn deposition of Special Agent Jody M. Keeku. 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. 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.

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.

Quoted: Originally Posted By Hard Rock: 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. 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?

Could this be introduced as evidence of the "typical" testing procedures used at BATFE?  Seriously!!!!

Quoted: 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.

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?

Talkin' to America interview with Len Savage by Aaron Zelman - highlighting the many BATFE illegalities and abuses and in particular the more recent Olofson case.

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.

BATFE: Any Semi-Auto Can Be A Machine Gun by Larry Pratt On July 2 I went to jail. Happily for me, I left right away. Sadly for David Olofson and his family, he had to stay, and will have to stay for 30 months in the Federal Correctional Institute in Sandstone, Minnesota. Why is the federal government incarcerating an Army reservist from Berlin, Wisconsin who has 16 years of service, a mortgage, a wife and three kids? They convicted him for knowingly transferring an unregistered machine gun. Since the case was brought by the rogue agency -- the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) -- we must assume that not only was Olofson innocent until proven guilty, but that he is still innocent after conviction. That is why Gun Owners of America is handling Olofson's appeal. As our attorneys have looked into the records of the case, it is obvious that a miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated. The chief piece of evidence is an AR-15 made by Olympic Arms many years ago. Olafson had loaned the gun to a young man, who was his neighbor. At a range the gun fired two bursts of three rounds each and then jammed. Normal people would understand that a gun that jams is malfunctioning and seek to get it fixed. For the Bureau (aka The Gang), a malfunctioning gun is an excellent opportunity to rack up an easy conviction on an illegal machine gun charge. The gun was tested twice... both times with very different results. The first test came back with a report that the gun is a semi-automatic rifle. The next test came back with a report that it had fired a 20-round burst, and was thus a machine gun. Firearms Enforcement Officer Max Kingrey got the gun to do something it had never done before. Suspicions of tampering by FEO Kingery, such as the addition of an auto sear or DIAS (considered a machine gun itself) could not be verified, as the defense was denied the opportunity to inspect the gun's inner workings. FEO Kingery's testing was done in secret, and never verified by anyone. In all probability, the Bureau tampered with evidence (the AR-15) and took a malfunctioning gun that jammed after a few rounds and converted it into a machine gun that dumped its magazine. Twenty-two years ago, a "drop in auto sear" or DIAS was made specifically for Olofson's rifle from the factory.     The Milwaukee BATFE agent, Jody Keeku, claims to have found the gun to be a machine gun when she checked it. That means she dry-fired it. A minimal knowledge of firearms (which seems to be above Ms. Keeku's pay grade) would be sufficient to conclude that a machine gun has to fire using its recoil from the first shot to set up and fire the next shot (until the burst control level is reached, or the finger is removed from the trigger). Ms. Keeku claims to be a firearms expert, but when the defense asked to see her training credentials and certifications, she declined to testify. She is at least smart enough to see that she would have been made to look foolish on the stand. Using two tests to "prove" that the gun is a machine gun goes to one of the big problems illustrating the lack of accountability with The Gang. On other occasions the Bureau has "proved" an accessory to be a machine gun by bolting it to a board and tying the bolt with a shoe string. Since the shoe string was what made the gun fire "automatically," it was declared to be a machine gun. So if you see a BATFE agent, you had better be wearing loafers! The same outcome-based testing found that an Upper -- which ATF doesn't consider to be a firearm -- was a machine gun after covering it with duct tape. When that did not work, The Gang added chains, bolts and a piece of metal so the recoil could operate the gun automatically without a trigger. If you cock this not-so-handy device, it fires uncontrollably until empty. Not even a stupid bank robber would choose such a weapon. But then, we are talking about The Gang. When a court-recognized firearms expert, Len Savage of Historic Arms, was brought in by the defense, he was not allowed to touch or test fire the gun. That is, not until the Bureau's agent at the trial broke the gun trying to reassemble it and asked for Savage's help in getting the gun back together. Olympic Arms had been subject to a recall order by the BATFE in 1986. Why? Because many of the guns would fire a short burst and then jam. Then it was a malfunctioning gun, but now it is a machine gun. More outcome-based procedures. Why was this information not presented to the court? Because the truth-challenged agents of The Gang told the court that not even the judge could see such privileged taxpayer information. Right. Unhappily, Olympic Arms did not have a copy of the order because their plant burned down in 2000. The judge displayed extreme prejudice during the sentencing hearing. Olofson had successfully defended himself against anti-self defense local cops who twice charged him while he was openly carrying a handgun -- something that is legal in Wisconsin! But the judge stated that anybody who carries a gun is dangerous, and he was adding to the severity of the decision because of the charges against which Olofson had prevailed! Never forget, the judge also denied Olofson's firearms expert access to the evidence used against him.  BATFE was allowed to video tape the "test firing" of the firearm, not Olofson. The tape shown in court was only a few short seconds showing a gun at such a distance that it was not possible to tell that it was Olofson's gun. Had Rep. Phil Gingrey's H.R. 1791 been law, it is safe to say that Olofson would not have been convicted. Gingrey's "Fairness in Firearm Testing Act" would require an unedited video of firearms testing in criminal cases to be made available to the defense. This was a requirement imposed on The Gang by the U.S. Attorney in the U.S. vs. Glover case. When the video was reviewed by the prosecution, they dropped the case with prejudice (legal speak which means the case can never be brought up again). Not only is Gun Owners of America representing Olofson during his appeal, we have set up an Olofson relief fund so that his wife and mother of their three young children will be able to keep making her mortgage and car payments. Those interested in making a small monthly donation from a charge to their credit card can go to www.gunowners.org/olofson.htm or call GOA and arrange over the phone to have this done. All funds so collected will go toward the monthly payments, or if possible, to prepayment of the principal loan amounts. The automatic donations will cease when Olofson is out of prison or when the donor instructs GOA to discontinue them. It is outrageous that an innocent man is in jail, but we are hoping to minimize the ugly impact of that on his family.

This shit makes me sad to draw a federal government paycheck.

Quoted: Wow.  I didn't expect to see this from the GOA. BATFE: Any Semi-Auto Can Be A Machine Gun ......

I emailed the NRA and asked why they were silent on this I got no response.

Quoted: Quoted: Wow.  I didn't expect to see this from the GOA. BATFE: Any Semi-Auto Can Be A Machine Gun ...... 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

When will the next hearing be? Do we know?

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????

Quoted: 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.

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.....

Now if you took seized the gun home, fucked with it, put in a happy switch, along with other various M-16 components, ...

Who knows? There are so many things I dislike about this case...limiting the defense, not charging manufacturing, not charging posession.

Quoted: 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????

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.

Quoted: 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?

That 'practice' still happens today.  Century is currently selling an entry level ($599) AR15 that uses modified M16 internals.

Quoted: 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.

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.  

Quoted: There are so many things I dislike about this case.

Me as well. On both sides.

Quoted: 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?

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?

Quoted: Quoted: 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? 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

Quoted: Quoted: 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? 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?

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?