Playboypenguin
Moderator
Yes, I think a lot of people are guilty of selective reading regarding the Heller decision. It is not nearly as broad or as generous as some people would like to believe.
Owner of broken rifle surrenders for 30-month sentence
- Thread starter bugaboo
- Start date
Hundreds of thousands of such guns are in common usage by lawful civilian owners across the country, who underwent the ATF's ridiculous rigmarole and paid a $200 tax. The only reason there aren't more is BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BAN.
The M-16 is the standard-issue infantry rifle of the US military. Bans on such firearms fail the "Miller Test" with respect to their relationship to the preservation or efficiency of the militia.
This was exactly the information I had been waiting for.
I always suspected that there was much more to the story than was being reported as a mere "malfunction." The day the ruling came down I recall the judge specifically stating that this was not an attack on malfunctions but there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Olofson intentionally modified the rifle to become a machine gun and knowingly transferred the gun.
In addition to what appear to be knowingly illegal modifications, selling them under a "borrowed" FFL seems to warrant a stiffer jail sentence than 30 months.
I always suspected that there was much more to the story than was being reported as a mere "malfunction." The day the ruling came down I recall the judge specifically stating that this was not an attack on malfunctions but there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Olofson intentionally modified the rifle to become a machine gun and knowingly transferred the gun.
In addition to what appear to be knowingly illegal modifications, selling them under a "borrowed" FFL seems to warrant a stiffer jail sentence than 30 months.
Agreed. If an until Heller is found applicable to state regulation, it's not going to result in any radical changes - and may end up doing more harm in giving a clear green light to states like California if they find out they are not actually limited by the Second Amendment.
There are hundreds of thousands of M-16s in common usage by civilians in the USA? M-16s, fully auto. You are talking 200,000 plus of them...
Sorry but I don't think so. The M-16 is fully auto. Scalia mentioned suitable for militia use AND in common usage by the citizenry. M-16s do not meet the "and" requirement.
Of course the guy this whole thread is about can challenge the conviction to the SCOTUS on 2A grounds but he will loose. The SCOTUS, even Scalia, is not going to declare the regulation of the 2A with regards to fully automatic weapons as anythign but acceptable. How it is regulated is another thing.
Scalia said that it might be objected that if M-16s were banned the operative clause was detached from the prefatory clause. Obviously, he considers it a reasonable objection, or he would not bother to answer it.
His answer: the court can't help it if "modern developments" have detached the main and prefatory clauses.
In the case of the M-16, the only modern development which has done that is the ban! Semi-auto versions are popular, and the legal full auto ones are so wildly popular that most can't afford them. A happy switch is not dangerous and unusual.
Reasonable regulation may pass, but the post 86 ban is a ban, and is not open to the government according to the appeals court judgement just affirmed.
His answer: the court can't help it if "modern developments" have detached the main and prefatory clauses.
In the case of the M-16, the only modern development which has done that is the ban! Semi-auto versions are popular, and the legal full auto ones are so wildly popular that most can't afford them. A happy switch is not dangerous and unusual.
Reasonable regulation may pass, but the post 86 ban is a ban, and is not open to the government according to the appeals court judgement just affirmed.
Last edited:
Kreyzhorse
New member
I agree with this. Heller isn't a sweeping endorsement of all things gun. Heller confirms an individual right while understanding that some regulation is expected. For example, DC will issue licenses, but they will not allow semi-auto handguns and they feel that this does not violate the Court decision.
If you haven't read the decision, I think you need to read the entire brief. I found the dissenting opinions very troubling. Considering the fact that Heller only won by one vote and I don't think for a second that our gun troubles are now over.
When this case first hit the news I read a few posts pointing out that it was much more than a broken rifle that most were trying to make it out to be. A few had found that he was actually into the intentionally modifying guns business and everything else this affidavit says. The ones trying to say this were drowned out by those proclaiming the evil BATF jackbooted thugs were lying and just out to get the poor fellow.
I don't know anyghing other than what I have read on the Internet about this case but this affidavit sure paints a different story about what happened than was being told by mr. Olofson's supporters andmakes much more sense than the accidental three round burst of a damages rifle.
I am not saying that the law is correct but it is the law and it sure appears to me that Mr. Olofson dilberately and knowingly broke the laws. There are some who will never believe that Mr. Olofson did anything wrong but there are amny who don't believe that we ever went to the moon and little grey men regularly abduct people to have sex with them and return them back to their bed at least once a week.
I don't know anyghing other than what I have read on the Internet about this case but this affidavit sure paints a different story about what happened than was being told by mr. Olofson's supporters andmakes much more sense than the accidental three round burst of a damages rifle.
I am not saying that the law is correct but it is the law and it sure appears to me that Mr. Olofson dilberately and knowingly broke the laws. There are some who will never believe that Mr. Olofson did anything wrong but there are amny who don't believe that we ever went to the moon and little grey men regularly abduct people to have sex with them and return them back to their bed at least once a week.
Seems odd to me to say a law is incorrect and yet agree the punishment fit the crime. Simply because something is law does not make it right. I would not have acted in the way this man did however nor do I believe that it deserves 30 months in prison, it appears to be a waste of time,money and energy which could have been used for better purposes. Fine him X number of dollars and move on unless you wish to send a message(?).
Wingman said:
Don't like the 55 mph speed limit on that highway? Go ahead and speed but don't cry about the law being incorrect when you get a ticket. Don't believe anyone should interfere with your right to ingest whatever drugs you desire? Go ahead and take them but don't whine about the law being incorrect when you stand in front of the judge. Don't want your tax money going to support the troops in Iraq? Protest all you want but if you deliberately don't pay, don't be surprised when you get hauled into court.
First, he didn't say the law was incorrect, he said "I am not saying that the law is correct but it is the law . . . ." Second, there are any number of laws out there that people do not believe to be correct but for which they are held accountable.
Don't like the 55 mph speed limit on that highway? Go ahead and speed but don't cry about the law being incorrect when you get a ticket. Don't believe anyone should interfere with your right to ingest whatever drugs you desire? Go ahead and take them but don't whine about the law being incorrect when you stand in front of the judge. Don't want your tax money going to support the troops in Iraq? Protest all you want but if you deliberately don't pay, don't be surprised when you get hauled into court.
The Big Boy Rule: Everyone is free to do as he chooses, but if one chooses to do something he knows is illegal and gets caught it's time to be a big boy and take the consequences rather than whining that the law isn't fair.
Corrollary to the Big Boy Rule: Don't like the law? Don't want to take the consequences? Then don't break it, CHANGE IT! Big boys who think laws are unjust know they can do something about them. Heller proves it.
Actually, Heller illustrates how difficult it would be for anyone to have challenged any of these laws. For 25 years isn't it, that that handgun ban has been passed, in D.C. The problem with such laws is how do you change them? Heller had it easy, since he was the poster boy for what was wrong. Cop who can't carry a gun in his house? Can't get a license?
Why? P.C. police chief that, like our area, view it as not PC to issue a CCW, so, they don't. How do you challenge that? They actually have a conspiracy by police chiefs that came out in documents to not issue CCW's. What do they do? They only issue to their friends, funding folks, none to the public. That way discrimination suits are difficult, since you don't know why the person got theirs.
Heller was perfect, in that he had no down side, no loss if he wasn't issued the permit. In other words his life didn't come to a screaching halt if the courts had found in favor o f the city regulations. Also, the SC did NOT have to rule on the individual right of the second amendment. They could have made some other stuff up to justify ruling in favor of the city.
Without the Heller case, gun laws are VERY difficult to attack. The only way to really do it is do something illegal, get caught at it, and take it up on appeal. It's called having standing, and, it's usually confined to Constitutional issues, such as a right in the Bill of Rights,
conflict of laws, different rulings on the same issue, by different appellate Federal courts, or, a conflict of laws, on the same issue, state and federal, better known as a Supremacy Clause issue. On top of those limitations, you have to have standing in the issue. Something material that affects your rights, or directly affects you. Without Heller, getting over the standing issue was very difficult.
For 200 years the court has dodged the conflict of law issues with state and federal gun laws. How? By not taking the cases. So, you've had two bodies of law, both pretty much contrary to the 2A, yet, no way to challenge.
By the way, the Big Boy Rule would have put a bunch of guys in jail, otherwise known as the Founding Fathers.
Seems they didn't respect, or follow, a number of laws in effect at the time...
Why? P.C. police chief that, like our area, view it as not PC to issue a CCW, so, they don't. How do you challenge that? They actually have a conspiracy by police chiefs that came out in documents to not issue CCW's. What do they do? They only issue to their friends, funding folks, none to the public. That way discrimination suits are difficult, since you don't know why the person got theirs.
Heller was perfect, in that he had no down side, no loss if he wasn't issued the permit. In other words his life didn't come to a screaching halt if the courts had found in favor o f the city regulations. Also, the SC did NOT have to rule on the individual right of the second amendment. They could have made some other stuff up to justify ruling in favor of the city.
Without the Heller case, gun laws are VERY difficult to attack. The only way to really do it is do something illegal, get caught at it, and take it up on appeal. It's called having standing, and, it's usually confined to Constitutional issues, such as a right in the Bill of Rights,
conflict of laws, different rulings on the same issue, by different appellate Federal courts, or, a conflict of laws, on the same issue, state and federal, better known as a Supremacy Clause issue. On top of those limitations, you have to have standing in the issue. Something material that affects your rights, or directly affects you. Without Heller, getting over the standing issue was very difficult.
For 200 years the court has dodged the conflict of law issues with state and federal gun laws. How? By not taking the cases. So, you've had two bodies of law, both pretty much contrary to the 2A, yet, no way to challenge.
By the way, the Big Boy Rule would have put a bunch of guys in jail, otherwise known as the Founding Fathers.
Seems they didn't respect, or follow, a number of laws in effect at the time...
Yep, they got the laws changed. If they hadn't they would have wound up in jail or worse. If you want the laws changed you have to be willing to pay the price and they were. Are you willing or just want to complain that the laws are wrong like most people do? If you want to start a revolution like the Founding Fathers then feel free to do it but be prepared to suffer the consequences if you don't get the laws changed.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
C'mon now guys. Let's not go down the ridiculous road of comparing the founders to common criminals. I would think we would all have more respect for them than that.
Surley you see a difference between standing up to a non-elected foreign dictatorship, with majority support of your fellow countrymen I might add, after officially declaring independence and enduring unfair and harsh treatment and some guy who breaks a democratically enacted law of his own freely elected government and nation for his own selfish pleasure while trying to hide the fact from authorities and who then lies when caught.
This man's nature and actions brand him a coward and a criminal. Stop trying to turn him into a freedom fighter simply because his crime involved a firearm.
Surley you see a difference between standing up to a non-elected foreign dictatorship, with majority support of your fellow countrymen I might add, after officially declaring independence and enduring unfair and harsh treatment and some guy who breaks a democratically enacted law of his own freely elected government and nation for his own selfish pleasure while trying to hide the fact from authorities and who then lies when caught.
This man's nature and actions brand him a coward and a criminal. Stop trying to turn him into a freedom fighter simply because his crime involved a firearm.
Stagger Lee
New member
"This man's nature and actions brand him a coward and a criminal. Stop trying to turn him into a freedom fighter simply because his crime involved a firearm."
Amen!
I don't know what's wrong with some people, but it always seems that just because a criminal likes guns, he's golden to some people no matter how little actual character or integrity he displays.
Olofson was a chronic lawbreaker and deadbeat, but the same people who worship Randy Weaver the white supremacist (and coward) are trying to put him on a pedestal. I guess we should be glad that John Wayne Gacy didn't like guns or we'd be hearing about the government conspiracy that put him in prison too.
Amen!
I don't know what's wrong with some people, but it always seems that just because a criminal likes guns, he's golden to some people no matter how little actual character or integrity he displays.
Olofson was a chronic lawbreaker and deadbeat, but the same people who worship Randy Weaver the white supremacist (and coward) are trying to put him on a pedestal. I guess we should be glad that John Wayne Gacy didn't like guns or we'd be hearing about the government conspiracy that put him in prison too.
Gatorhugger
Moderator
Does anybody ever admit they are wrong anymore?
This clown's supporters got everybody up in arms saying "no crime has been committed, no laws were broken, his gun malfunctioned, prove otherwise!"
Then when it is conclusively proved, the tune changed " Well it's a bad law!"
Talk about spinning a circle. Worse than my wife.
This clown's supporters got everybody up in arms saying "no crime has been committed, no laws were broken, his gun malfunctioned, prove otherwise!"
Then when it is conclusively proved, the tune changed " Well it's a bad law!"
Talk about spinning a circle. Worse than my wife.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Good gawd...talk about the tinfoil hat crowd. Some people will just never let something go even when they are clearly wrong.
Which is more likely? A massive government conspiracy targeting a lone individual where the government has nothing to gain or a single know repeat offender doing something wrong?
PBP:
The BATF doesn't have exactly the cleanest reputation in the world for a government agency. From supporting third party liability, the ability to sue the bar owner for the actions of a client, to fabricating facts as to shotgun barrel length etc. they've been caught more then once.
The BATF doesn't have exactly the cleanest reputation in the world for a government agency. From supporting third party liability, the ability to sue the bar owner for the actions of a client, to fabricating facts as to shotgun barrel length etc. they've been caught more then once.