The Olofson Case - Merged Threads

However, his consistent failure to follow the law, especially when its gun related, does dispute the idea that he had no intent to alter his weapon.
Click to expand...
It does??? So, following your rationale then those same actions "dispute" the "idea" that he had intent to murder someone too. So, as I said, let's charge him with an unsolved murder. He obviously likes guns, he's used them in a crime before, this therefore "disputes" the idea he's not a murderer. :rolleyes:

You say having been guilty of one crime doesn't mean you're automatically guilty of another, then you turn right around and say his commission of other crimes "dispute the idea that he had no intent to alter his weapon." That, my friend, is a contradiction.
 
You're forgetting something, the USA does not, and did not have to prove he modified the AR, just that he was in possession of it! As to his long rap sheet, if it was allowed, and I see no reason it shouldn't have been, it more then demonstrates a scofflaw!
 
You're forgetting something, the USA does not, and did not have to prove he modified the AR, just that he was in possession of it!
Click to expand...
They didn't charge him with possession, they charged him with transferring an unregistered machinegun.
 
Do you know if this was allowed as evidence in his trial?
Click to expand...

I have no earthly idea. However if you are going to play the "evil ATF" card, then we get to delve into this guys past, whether its admissible or not.

It does??? So, following your rationale then those same actions "dispute" the "idea" that he had intent to murder someone too. So, as I said, let's charge him with an unsolved murder. He obviously likes guns, he's used them in a crime before, this therefore "disputes" the idea he's not a murderer.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not analogous at all. There is a world of difference between murder (malum in se) versus machine gun laws/CCW violations (malum prohibitum.


You say having been guilty of one crime doesn't mean you're automatically guilty of another, then you turn right around and say his commission of other crimes "dispute the idea that he had no intent to alter his weapon." That, my friend, is a contradiction.
Click to expand...

No its not. Intent is but one element. You need to prove several other elements to convict someone of any particular crime.

His past violations of the law (and 18 is ridiculous) show at best a cavalier attitude and at worst a direct intent not to follow the law. So when he gets up on the stand and says "I would never knowingly transfer a machine gun" its questionable at best.
 
If, as was mentioned in some posts, Olofson is/was a convicted felon, then the simple fact of his possession of ANY firearm and or ammunition would be a violation is existing federal law. Correct me if I'm wrong.

How come, I wonder, if the foregoing was the case, didn't the BATFE bring charges under the above specification, as there was zero need to become involved with/in/or about machineguns, registered or otherwise, as opposed to the possibility of malfunctioning semi-automatic rifles?
 
Nope. Not analogous at all. There is a world of difference between murder (malum in se) versus machine gun laws/CCW violations (malum prohibitum.
Click to expand...
I disagree. For the sake of this argument a crime is a crime, regardless if you think one is "evil" and the other is just plain old wrong due to statue. But I'll amend my analogy.

So, let's substitute murder with drug dealing. If a guy will, say, carry a concealed weapon without a license then it stands to reason he would also manufacture Meth and distribute it.

Your second attempt is better, but still not quite accurate. It still assumes that if he committed one crime he therefore must have committed the other.

...and no, such evidence should not be allowed into court as it has absolutely no relevance to the case. None. Had he been arrested for an illegal suppressor, a previous machinegun charge, selling an illegal weapon, then his criminal history would have been relevant. But a misdemeanor charge of carrying a concealed weapon is not in the same league as manufacturing and transferring an illegal weapon.

Under Wisconsin Statutes Section 941.23, carrying a concealed weapon is a Class A misdemeanor. Transferring an illegal machinegun is a felony. Are you suggesting that because I've been charged and convicted of misdemeanors before (traffic violations) that I'm somehow more inclined to manufacture and transfer an illegal weapon? If I were brought up on such charges, would my driving record prove anything in court? Would it even be allowed in court? No.
 
I can't believe Dobb's producers didn't hook up with this this guy's rap sheet. It just seems sort of mysterious that they would just gloss over it, for whatever reason's. Not being an attorney I can only speculate, but I have to think that if this fellow had had a greatly reduced sheet the USAO would never have gone after him so zealously, they wanted this guy!
 
Why do you keep repeating that?

Do you think because he didn't pay a tax bill or didn't make a credit card payment, or that because he got charged with a misdemeanor that he's somehow guilty of transferring a machinegun based solely on that "evidence"?

Sorry, that's just plain ridiculous.

The guys "record" is pretty mundane. Having judgments against you in civil court for not paying a bill isn't a "record". Being charged with a misdemeanor concealed weapons charge isn't much of a criminal record.

There's a guy working in our local gun store who was charged with a misdemeanor concealed weapons charge a few years ago. His license expired and he got stopped. The way he saw it, as do most people around here, it's no big deal.

Why, as gun owners, are you all of a sudden offended by a person carrying a firearm, legal or not... especially in a state where it's nothing more than a misdemeanor? Do you get equally wound up when a friend for family member breaks the speed limit by 15+mph? Do you scream "CRIMINAL!!!!" and demand their driving record be brought up at every gathering of friends or family?

Some of you guys are gossipy old ladies... I swear. ;)
 
One of the motions filed by his attorney's. This gives you some insight into the case.

TMP144.jpg

TMP145.jpg

TMP146.jpg

TMP147.jpg

TMP148.jpg

TMP149.jpg
 
Olafsen got screwed, plain and simple, and the spectacle of so many people jumping on the bandwagon to attack him and assume he was guilty is one of the most distasteful things I've seen in the firearms community in a long time. Shame on you and God help you if you ever have a weapon that malfunctions with the wrong ammo.
 
and the spectacle of so many people jumping on the bandwagon to attack him and assume he was guilty is one of the most distasteful things I've seen in the firearms community in a long time
Click to expand...

Who is assuming. A jury of his peers convicted him.
 
I find it interesting that nobody mentions that the word "peer" has different meaning today then it did when it was written, and that its original intent is nearly never followed today.
 
I find it interesting that nobody mentions that the word "peer" has different meaning today then it did when it was written, and that its original intent is nearly never followed today.
Click to expand...

Tell me how.

WildinanetfrenzyAlaska TM
 
?????

one thing, if a charge is filed and a conviction takes place it becomes a president and the next judge can use it as reason to convict.that is why even hard core criminals should be found innocent if the law is wrong.was this man guilty in any of the cases before or were they just charges.have you ever had a gun repeat.bingo your guilty.before the 60s judges ruled the gun had to fire full auto or it was not a mg.even a belt fed browning was not a mg unless it would fire full.then they made the receiver a mg now a part such as a sear is a machine gun.good luck to you,I stick to bolt guns.you all have your necks out if you have a AR 15/AK47 type,or anthing that shoots semi auto.
your safer with no jury now adays.as so many are brain washed to be anti gun.and the attitude of "he must be guilty or he would not be charged"
well when Obama or Hillary gets in you wont have to worry.;)-:rolleyes:-:eek:
 
If you had a chance to follow this case as it progressed and read the testimony of the ATF's "expert" witness you'd know that the BATF violated discovery rules, blatently mischarecterized evidence in order to exclude it, and threatened, intimidated and bribed witnesses in order to get their conviction.

I have several speeding tickets and had my driver's license suspended after I forgot to pay a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. Does my criminal past mean that any charge made against me is more likely to be true?

Absolutely disgusting. We don't have to worry about the anti gun crowd taking our guns away, all they have to do is fabricate some trumped up charges and members of our own community will hand them over.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top