Owner of broken rifle surrenders for 30-month sentence

Too bad he's not in Kali. Arnold is preposing letting non-violent felons out early, since we can't afford to keep them in prison...
 
Good posts, steelcore. Your points have not been refuted.

We have a number of forum members who not only support enforcement of arbitrary laws; but see a need to mindlessly cheer when a productive citizen is sent to prison on a marginal (at best) judgment call by a rogue agency. Very perplexing!

When questioned about their position, the strongest retorts they can muster are:

1. The law is the law, and must be obeyed; :rolleyes:

2. So what! :confused:

3. If you don't like it, leave; :eek:

4. Ad Homs (i.e., "future Tim McVeighs...") :barf:

One statement, in particular, displays a certain level of ignorance:
Who do you think gave you the rights you enjoy while living in this country? The government, of the people and for the people, did. They did not spontaneously happen.
Click to expand...

Research, starting with Declaration of Independence, is advised.;)
 
I would suggest those who feel their position in support of this moron is correct to modify their own AR-15 to a full auto weapon, call the BATF and dare them to prosecute you for it.

If you feel the COTUS is that clear then use it to challenge them by being the test case.
 
SteelCore said:
As far as "poor taste," I'll tell you what I think is in poor taste: Defending the enemies of the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
So, in your world view, all rights are absolute? Or just the 2A?

There is a price to be paid by living together in a society, wherein each member gets to exercise their rights in a manner that doesn't infringe on their neighbors rights.

The price is simple. Rights are not absolute. The founders never thought so, why do you?

What is in poor taste is to denigrate the rule of law. Instead, you should be getting politically active; surround yourself with enough people of the same mind, to get the laws you find disgusting overturned.

Can't find enough people to work within the system? Then perhaps your ideals aren't within the margin of acceptability.

Your endless screeching does nothing, except to paint you as being on the fringe.

As for the thread at hand, it appears that Olofson was making full-auto firearms, contrary to the law. He got caught and merits the punishment.

Fomenting rebellion, because you don't like the law, is futile, pointless and just short of unlawful behavior... At least while there are viable means to get the law changed.

If anything, the Heller decision proves that such change is still viable and the system still works.
 
Musketeer said:
I would suggest those who feel their position in support of this moron is correct to modify their own AR-15 to a full auto weapon, call the BATF and dare them to prosecute you for it.

If you feel the COTUS is that clear then use it to challenge them by being the test case.
Click to expand...

It's not that I support Mr. Olofson, I'm not sure that I do. My first post in this thread sums up how I feel pretty succinctly.

I'm just saying that if you think he deserves prison time along with people who are rapists, murderers, or other violent offenders for modifying his own personal property, with no victims, and no one harmed, you guys need to look closer at who you label "extremists". If something like this has to be an punishable offense, it should be a small fine at the worst.

John, steelcore answered your question pretty well.
 
But isn't the argument you're making here essentially reducible to "might makes right"?
Click to expand...
No, absolutely not.

The point is that every civilization, every body of citizens throughout history has recognized the need for order, the need for citizens to obey laws, even laws that they do not consider important, even those that they consider "arbitrary", even those that proscribe "victimless crimes".
To address your question more directly: not only can arbitrary laws be enforced and victimless crimes be prosecuted, but so can downright tyrannical laws (which are arguably the same thing).
Click to expand...
First of all, this is not answering my question directly, indirectly or otherwise.

Second, it's ludicrous to equate the law that Mr. Olofson chose to violate with tyrannical laws. Mr. Olofson could have done virtually exactly what he did and stayed within the law but he chose instead to break the law.

What we're talking about is a law that requires citizens to fulfill certain requirements and qualifications before owning and/or transferring a particular class of weapon. Hardly equivalent to genocide or slavery.
 
Let me clarify, when I said Steelcore's answer summed up your question to me pretty well, I am not saying that the law in the Olofoson case is tyrannical, but continuing with what I initially said, a victimless crime, and a seemingly arbitrary law. One in which the potential punishment does not seem fitting for the offense.

Another example is in the case of 922(r). That hardly seems like it's federal offense material punishable by heavy fines and or imprisonment.
 
If he did not commit a violent crime or show intent to do so, why is he getting 10X the sentence for a rapist or a bank robber? I find it amusing, but not really funny, that the same factions oppose the war on terrorism by looking at financial transactions, telephone and internet screening of suspicious calls (but no automatic convictions) and yet support convicting someone who was probably within 2A protections and intended to hurt no one.
 
The government, of the people and for the people, did. They did not spontaneously happen.
Click to expand...

Please show me a single passage in the Constitution, or in any letters, or notes, by the Founders, the idea that the government GRANTS rights.

That does NOT appear in the Constitution or in any contemporary writings. It's very clear at least that Jefferson and Hamilton and their contemporaries believed in the idea that rights are innate, springing from the basic ideas of morality.

I'm with Jefferson.
 
Please show me a single passage in the Constitution, or in any letters, or notes, by the Founders, the idea that the government GRANTS rights
Click to expand...
What do you think they are doing by writing the constitution? And who where they? They were citizen representatives of the masses. I hate to break it to you, and any one that hates the government so much, but the only reason you have the rights you do is because of the government. The government is an assembled mass of representatives of the people. The government IS the people. Just like tribal councils of old. They use the power of the assembled masses and collective will of the people to enact rules of law and codes of conduct. Like someone already said, if you find yourself constantly at odds with the will of the people then the problem is probably not the government...the problem is that you are a fringe element.

If the USA had not formed it's own government and declared it's independence you would still be drinking tea and paying taxes to England.
 
The government is an assembled mass of representatives of the people. The government IS the people
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but have you read the Federalist Papers? Hamilton specifically did not want to have this 'government which IS the people' that you describe. He wanted to have a government selected of the very best representatives of the people

I hate to break it to you, and any one that hates the government so much, but the only reason you have the rights you do is because of the government.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's vice versa. The only reason we have governments is because we have rights. At least according to the Founders.

If the USA had not formed it's own government and declared it's independence you would still be drinking tea and paying taxes to England.
Click to expand...

The writing of the Constitution only took place after the British were chased away.
 
For what it's worth:
In cases that the judge doesn't feel the verdict is justifiable, or correct, they will often give a minimal sentence. However, if the person convicted is stupid enough to not take the wrist slap, the appellate court will often remand, that means send back, and demand a sentence that is in line with the letter of the law.

Recently saw a guy appeal himself from 2 months to 3 years...
 
I am sorry, but have you read the Federalist Papers? Hamilton specifically did not want to have this 'government which IS the people' that you describe. He wanted to have a government selected of the very best representatives of the people
Click to expand...
The federalist papers are not the basis of our country. They were a sales pitch to the populace, printed in newspapers, as to why the constitution should be ratified. Maybe you should take that into account when you read them.

And just who do those "representatives" represent? They represent the people. They are the voice of those they represent. It is called a republic. Which is what we are. The opinion you are quoting was basically a bit of elitism where Hamilton felt that the common man did not possess the ability to rule without falling prey to mob mentality.

You might also want to remember the federalist papers opposed the enactment of the bill of rights because the constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people...rather it listed the powers of the government.
Actually, it's vice versa. The only reason we have governments is because we have rights. At least according to the Founders.
Click to expand...
Once again, you are confusing the sales pitch with the product.
 
What do you think they are doing by writing the constitution? And who where they? They were citizen representatives of the masses. I hate to break it to you, and any one that hates the government so much, but the only reason you have the rights you do is because of the government.
Click to expand...

From my understanding, the intent by the founders in writing a Bill of Rights was merely to codify and protect pre-existing rights from being taken away by the future Government, i.e. the one we have now.

We owe NOTHING to the present roster of suits in congress for that codification. We can however thank the 5 members of the Supreme Court who honored and validated the B of R. in Heller.
 
I don't believe there are any regular readers of my posts in the L&P section who seriously think I'm a big fan of government alphabet agencies or federal firearms regulation. So when you read the following opinion I hope you will take that into consideration.

Regardless of the justness of the law under which Mr. Olofson was prosecuted, regardless of mine or anyone else's opinion of the BATFE, there is the sworn affidavit in which the salient point, in my opinion, is not the testimony of the man he lent the AR to, but the test that was done by the BATFE. In that test it was claimed that the weapon was fired 60 times with commonly available commercial ammunition. In each of three tests of twenty rounds of ammunition, when the selector switch was placed in the unmarked third position, it fired all the rounds automatically.

Now that is a glaring contradiction to Mr. Olofson's and his supporters version of events, namely the 'malfunctioning' rifle story.

So in my view there are only two possibilities, either the agent who tested the rifle lied under oath to frame an innocent man, or Mr. Olofson lied when he got caught to try to elicit sympathy and beat the charges.

I personally don't like being duped by someone with lies that were intended to illicit the sympathy and support of law-abiding gun-owners. I also would not like it if the BATFE agent lied to frame an innocent man.

Until someone provides evidence that the BATFE conspired against Mr. Olofson and manufactured evidence in order to wrongly charge and convict him, he is going to have to, as JohnSAk put it, live by the Big Boy rule.

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 its 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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top