cloverleaf762
New member
I'm sure they will make more public. Link to the arfcom thread.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483&page=36
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483&page=36
The Olofson Case - Merged Threads
- Thread starter Chris Phelps
- Start date
theinvisibleheart
New member
Case No. 06-CR-320
court doc
http://www.websupp.com/data/EDWI/2:06-cr-00320-22-EDWI.pdf
www dot websupp.com/data/EDWI/2:06-cr-00320-22-EDWI dot pdf
court doc
http://www.websupp.com/data/EDWI/2:06-cr-00320-22-EDWI.pdf
www dot websupp.com/data/EDWI/2:06-cr-00320-22-EDWI dot pdf
cloverleaf762
New member
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/in...ntent&task=view&id=192&Itemid=37#usercomments
New article from Jeff Knox. A shortened version of this will be running both in the shotgun news and in some other firearm periodicals.
New article from Jeff Knox. A shortened version of this will be running both in the shotgun news and in some other firearm periodicals.
Jeff Knox on Olofson case plus posters thoughts. Readers might want to consider.
Olofson's Troubles
Written by Jeff Knox, on 02-02-2008 23:26
Note: This is a longer format than our normal Knox Reports. This was written for general public consumption so forgive some of the rudimentary explanations, etc. A shorter, more concise version was produced for Shotgun News and other "gun media," but we felt it was best to post the full version here.
We're still sorting through the mentioned documents and hope to have them available soon. JAK
The Accidental Felon
By Jeff Knox
(January 29, 2008) There are several ways for a person to unintentionally commit a felony, but most of them are looked at by prosecutors, judges, and juries as the accidents they are and dealt with accordingly. Such is not always the case however, especially when firearms are involved; for the past 2 years David Olofson has been learning that the hard way. Olofson is a regular guy who happens to be fond of AR15 style sport-utility rifles. He loaned a rifle to a friend. While the friend was shooting it he moved the safety switch to a point beyond the Fire position. The rifle fired a couple of short bursts and jammed. Someone at or near the club called the police to complain about machinegun fire. The police notified the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and David Olofson was subsequently charged and convicted of illegally transferring a machinegun.
Neither Olofson nor his friend was charged with possession of an unregistered machinegun or with illegally manufacturing, modifying, or otherwise making a machinegun. Obviously ATF did not believe they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Olofson or his friend had intentionally altered the rifle to fire full-auto so they prosecuted on the easier charge of transferring. Everyone agreed that the gun belonged to Olofson and that he had loaned it to his friend. That meant that the only issue in question in the case was whether the gun was a machinegun. Since ATF is the final arbiter in determining whether a gun is a machinegun, and the law defining machineguns tends to be selectively interpreted by them, the government had a distinct advantage.
As a matter of fact, when the ATF Firearms Technical Branch (FTB) examined the rifle they concluded that it was not a machinegun. They did find that if the Safety switch was moved beyond its normal range of motion, the gun would fire once and jam, leaving a loaded round in the chamber. They determined that moving the Safety in such a way interfered with the trigger disconnector causing the hammer to follow the bolt as it returned to battery rather than being stopped by the sear; a fairly common malfunction known as hammer-follow.
At the request of the local ATF agent, the FTB tested the gun a second time using a brand of .223 ammunition known for having sensitive primers. Those tests resulted in intermittent, unregulated, automatic fire and jamming due to hammer-follow, but this time the FTB concluded that, under strict interpretation of the law, the gun’s malfunction did make it a machinegun.
The cornerstone of this charge is the government’s contention that it doesn’t matter whether a gun fires multiple shots as a result of malfunction or modification because the law defines a machinegun as; “… any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” While on the witness stand, firearms expert Len Savage asked the Assistant US Attorney prosecuting the case if that would make his grandfather’s old double-gun a machinegun if it malfunctioned and fired both barrels with one pull of the trigger. The AUSA responded by paraphrasing the legal definition of a machinegun with emphasis placed on “any weapon which shoots… more than one shot… by a single function of the trigger.”
Anyone experienced with semi-automatic firearms knows that hammer-follow is a relatively common malfunction which usually does not result in a sharp enough blow to the primer to result in ignition. When it is enough to trigger the primer, the resulting fire is very dangerous for the shooter. Semi-auto firearms are not designed to withstand the stresses of full-automatic fire, particularly unregulated automatic fire. A true machinegun has mechanical systems in place to control the gun’s rate of fire, literally pausing momentarily between shots. A gun firing by hammer-follow does not have these controls and will fire as fast as the bolt spring can cycle the action.
In the Olofson case, the government entered into evidence a tightly edited video clip of one of their testers firing Olofson’s gun for a relatively long full-auto string. The cyclic rate was estimated to be near 1700 rounds per minute, more than twice that of a properly regulated M16. The shooter clearly understood the danger involved as he was holding the firearm well away from his face and body in obvious fear that the rifle would break apart at any moment.
At the government’s insistence, the court refused to allow Olofson’s firearms expert to physically examine the gun; he was only allowed to observe as an ATF employee took the gun through a function check and opened the action to his view. What he saw were standard, unaltered components of the same type and configuration that were included in this particular brand of rifle from the factory over two decades ago; parts that are known by ATF to produce exactly the type of malfunction noted and in response to which ATF had once ordered a safety recall.
In another recent case, ATF removed a gun from the machinegun registration rolls because the gun was manufactured as an AR15 and had been intentionally modified to fire in full-auto mode using the hammer-follow method. ATF ruled that such a gun was not a machinegun, but a semi-auto in need of repair. By removing the gun from the NFA rolls ATF devalued the gun from a market value of around $20,000.00 to about $1,500.
Olofson’s judge and jury were not allowed to learn about either the ATF ordered recall or the reclassification of a rifle like Olofson’s as not being a machinegun, because ATF and the US Attorney claimed that such information was prohibited from disclosure by tax privacy laws. This contention now appears to be patently false and the judge has egg on his face for not making the government prove their privacy claim.
I don’t really know David Olofson and I have no personal knowledge of any of the facts in this case. I have spoken with Olofson, reviewed the case documents and spoken with Len Savage, the firearms expert who was present for most of the trial. From those interviews and documents I can not determine with any certainty the complete facts of this case. What I am certain of is that David Olofson was convicted on flimsy evidence without a proper opportunity to present a reasonable defense. If the government can destroy his life for nothing more than loaning a malfunctioning rifle to a friend, then no gun owner is safe from the threat of government agents.
David Olofson is a decorated Army veteran and member of the Active Reserves with over 16 years of service. He has a wife and three kids, including a new daughter born in the midst of this mess. Olofson is a firearms rights activist who has been willing to fight the system and face arrest for exercising his legal rights. He has won those fights and forced the police to obey the law when they were inclined not to. Now he has been convicted of a crime that doesn’t appear to have been a crime at all and is on the verge of losing his Army pension, his right to own firearms, and his very liberty.
Olofson is working on an appeal of this travesty and if there is any justice left in our system this conviction will be reversed. That won’t undo the damage that has been done and you can bet that the overzealous government employees who perpetrated this abomination will not be asked to pay restitution or even have negative remarks put in their personnel files.
The Firearms Coalition is encouraging concerned citizens to contact their elected representatives in Washington and demand that they take a closer look at this case and launch a full investigation. We are also working with members of Congress to get the definition of a machinegun clarified so this type of harassment won’t be facilitated by the letter of the law in the future. Until that is accomplished, I encourage gunowners to be especially cautious; a little paranoia can be a healthy thing.
If you think something like this couldn’t happen to you, consider another recent case where an anonymous tip (read crotchety neighbor, disgruntled ex, or hoplophobic co-worker) called federal authorities and claimed that a young man possessed machineguns. ATF and the local police showed up, went through the man’s collection, and confiscated an “assault weapon” for testing. The fellow knows that the gun was semi-auto when ATF took it, but after learning about David Olofson’s odyssey he is very concerned about what the Firearms Technical Branch’s conclusion will be.
Interested persons wishing to delve deeper into the Olofson case can find more information and much of Olofson’s documentation through The Firearms Coalition’s web site at www.FirearmsCoalition.org/Olofson.
Re the above piece, and it's content, the following comes to mind.
1. The Firearms Technical Breanch (FTB) was right the first time, Re their second examinatiohn, given that "people had taken positions", there was the necessity to save face, ergo their politicized second opinion. Shame on the FTB.
2. U.S. Attorneys and their Assistants are political animals, who in this case, having sensed which way the wind was blowing, the BATFE felt the need to make a case here, did the politicially expedient thing, they proseuted.
3. As to Mr. Len Savage being denied the opporunity to examine the rifle, given the historical record, last time he examined a supposed machinegun in an ATF prosecution, the ATF lost it's ass, the charges against John Glover were dismisssed, WITH PREJUDICE, from what I've read. Once bitten, twce shy is something most have probably heard and it likely is an appropriate observation. Unfortunately, when applied to criminal prosecutions, to bar competent technical testimony, it can lead to a situation that is certainly less than desirable, as is here the case, or so it seems.
Olofson's Troubles
Written by Jeff Knox, on 02-02-2008 23:26
Note: This is a longer format than our normal Knox Reports. This was written for general public consumption so forgive some of the rudimentary explanations, etc. A shorter, more concise version was produced for Shotgun News and other "gun media," but we felt it was best to post the full version here.
We're still sorting through the mentioned documents and hope to have them available soon. JAK
The Accidental Felon
By Jeff Knox
(January 29, 2008) There are several ways for a person to unintentionally commit a felony, but most of them are looked at by prosecutors, judges, and juries as the accidents they are and dealt with accordingly. Such is not always the case however, especially when firearms are involved; for the past 2 years David Olofson has been learning that the hard way. Olofson is a regular guy who happens to be fond of AR15 style sport-utility rifles. He loaned a rifle to a friend. While the friend was shooting it he moved the safety switch to a point beyond the Fire position. The rifle fired a couple of short bursts and jammed. Someone at or near the club called the police to complain about machinegun fire. The police notified the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and David Olofson was subsequently charged and convicted of illegally transferring a machinegun.
Neither Olofson nor his friend was charged with possession of an unregistered machinegun or with illegally manufacturing, modifying, or otherwise making a machinegun. Obviously ATF did not believe they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Olofson or his friend had intentionally altered the rifle to fire full-auto so they prosecuted on the easier charge of transferring. Everyone agreed that the gun belonged to Olofson and that he had loaned it to his friend. That meant that the only issue in question in the case was whether the gun was a machinegun. Since ATF is the final arbiter in determining whether a gun is a machinegun, and the law defining machineguns tends to be selectively interpreted by them, the government had a distinct advantage.
As a matter of fact, when the ATF Firearms Technical Branch (FTB) examined the rifle they concluded that it was not a machinegun. They did find that if the Safety switch was moved beyond its normal range of motion, the gun would fire once and jam, leaving a loaded round in the chamber. They determined that moving the Safety in such a way interfered with the trigger disconnector causing the hammer to follow the bolt as it returned to battery rather than being stopped by the sear; a fairly common malfunction known as hammer-follow.
At the request of the local ATF agent, the FTB tested the gun a second time using a brand of .223 ammunition known for having sensitive primers. Those tests resulted in intermittent, unregulated, automatic fire and jamming due to hammer-follow, but this time the FTB concluded that, under strict interpretation of the law, the gun’s malfunction did make it a machinegun.
The cornerstone of this charge is the government’s contention that it doesn’t matter whether a gun fires multiple shots as a result of malfunction or modification because the law defines a machinegun as; “… any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” While on the witness stand, firearms expert Len Savage asked the Assistant US Attorney prosecuting the case if that would make his grandfather’s old double-gun a machinegun if it malfunctioned and fired both barrels with one pull of the trigger. The AUSA responded by paraphrasing the legal definition of a machinegun with emphasis placed on “any weapon which shoots… more than one shot… by a single function of the trigger.”
Anyone experienced with semi-automatic firearms knows that hammer-follow is a relatively common malfunction which usually does not result in a sharp enough blow to the primer to result in ignition. When it is enough to trigger the primer, the resulting fire is very dangerous for the shooter. Semi-auto firearms are not designed to withstand the stresses of full-automatic fire, particularly unregulated automatic fire. A true machinegun has mechanical systems in place to control the gun’s rate of fire, literally pausing momentarily between shots. A gun firing by hammer-follow does not have these controls and will fire as fast as the bolt spring can cycle the action.
In the Olofson case, the government entered into evidence a tightly edited video clip of one of their testers firing Olofson’s gun for a relatively long full-auto string. The cyclic rate was estimated to be near 1700 rounds per minute, more than twice that of a properly regulated M16. The shooter clearly understood the danger involved as he was holding the firearm well away from his face and body in obvious fear that the rifle would break apart at any moment.
At the government’s insistence, the court refused to allow Olofson’s firearms expert to physically examine the gun; he was only allowed to observe as an ATF employee took the gun through a function check and opened the action to his view. What he saw were standard, unaltered components of the same type and configuration that were included in this particular brand of rifle from the factory over two decades ago; parts that are known by ATF to produce exactly the type of malfunction noted and in response to which ATF had once ordered a safety recall.
In another recent case, ATF removed a gun from the machinegun registration rolls because the gun was manufactured as an AR15 and had been intentionally modified to fire in full-auto mode using the hammer-follow method. ATF ruled that such a gun was not a machinegun, but a semi-auto in need of repair. By removing the gun from the NFA rolls ATF devalued the gun from a market value of around $20,000.00 to about $1,500.
Olofson’s judge and jury were not allowed to learn about either the ATF ordered recall or the reclassification of a rifle like Olofson’s as not being a machinegun, because ATF and the US Attorney claimed that such information was prohibited from disclosure by tax privacy laws. This contention now appears to be patently false and the judge has egg on his face for not making the government prove their privacy claim.
I don’t really know David Olofson and I have no personal knowledge of any of the facts in this case. I have spoken with Olofson, reviewed the case documents and spoken with Len Savage, the firearms expert who was present for most of the trial. From those interviews and documents I can not determine with any certainty the complete facts of this case. What I am certain of is that David Olofson was convicted on flimsy evidence without a proper opportunity to present a reasonable defense. If the government can destroy his life for nothing more than loaning a malfunctioning rifle to a friend, then no gun owner is safe from the threat of government agents.
David Olofson is a decorated Army veteran and member of the Active Reserves with over 16 years of service. He has a wife and three kids, including a new daughter born in the midst of this mess. Olofson is a firearms rights activist who has been willing to fight the system and face arrest for exercising his legal rights. He has won those fights and forced the police to obey the law when they were inclined not to. Now he has been convicted of a crime that doesn’t appear to have been a crime at all and is on the verge of losing his Army pension, his right to own firearms, and his very liberty.
Olofson is working on an appeal of this travesty and if there is any justice left in our system this conviction will be reversed. That won’t undo the damage that has been done and you can bet that the overzealous government employees who perpetrated this abomination will not be asked to pay restitution or even have negative remarks put in their personnel files.
The Firearms Coalition is encouraging concerned citizens to contact their elected representatives in Washington and demand that they take a closer look at this case and launch a full investigation. We are also working with members of Congress to get the definition of a machinegun clarified so this type of harassment won’t be facilitated by the letter of the law in the future. Until that is accomplished, I encourage gunowners to be especially cautious; a little paranoia can be a healthy thing.
If you think something like this couldn’t happen to you, consider another recent case where an anonymous tip (read crotchety neighbor, disgruntled ex, or hoplophobic co-worker) called federal authorities and claimed that a young man possessed machineguns. ATF and the local police showed up, went through the man’s collection, and confiscated an “assault weapon” for testing. The fellow knows that the gun was semi-auto when ATF took it, but after learning about David Olofson’s odyssey he is very concerned about what the Firearms Technical Branch’s conclusion will be.
Interested persons wishing to delve deeper into the Olofson case can find more information and much of Olofson’s documentation through The Firearms Coalition’s web site at www.FirearmsCoalition.org/Olofson.
Re the above piece, and it's content, the following comes to mind.
1. The Firearms Technical Breanch (FTB) was right the first time, Re their second examinatiohn, given that "people had taken positions", there was the necessity to save face, ergo their politicized second opinion. Shame on the FTB.
2. U.S. Attorneys and their Assistants are political animals, who in this case, having sensed which way the wind was blowing, the BATFE felt the need to make a case here, did the politicially expedient thing, they proseuted.
3. As to Mr. Len Savage being denied the opporunity to examine the rifle, given the historical record, last time he examined a supposed machinegun in an ATF prosecution, the ATF lost it's ass, the charges against John Glover were dismisssed, WITH PREJUDICE, from what I've read. Once bitten, twce shy is something most have probably heard and it likely is an appropriate observation. Unfortunately, when applied to criminal prosecutions, to bar competent technical testimony, it can lead to a situation that is certainly less than desirable, as is here the case, or so it seems.
theinvisibleheart
New member
NFA
this is not surprising, esp. if you have had experiences directly dealing with BATFE/NFA branch in legal transaction.
The interpretation and application of NFA tends to be relatively arbitrarily (modified receiver being the MG, trigger pack being the MG, sear being the MG, lever being the MG, shoelace being the MG, etc.).
Kinds of remind me of our tax laws.
--J
this is not surprising, esp. if you have had experiences directly dealing with BATFE/NFA branch in legal transaction.
The interpretation and application of NFA tends to be relatively arbitrarily (modified receiver being the MG, trigger pack being the MG, sear being the MG, lever being the MG, shoelace being the MG, etc.).
Kinds of remind me of our tax laws.
--J
theinvisibleheart:
What is or is not surprising is beside the point, the point being that certain behavior in a court of law is not acceptable. The presence of such behavior is sufficient to have a guilty verdict tossed out.
Strikes me that respecting the antics of the BATFE and U.S. Attorney's Office in this case, that we here see exampled in all it's glory, the above mentioned unacceptable behavior. I believe that it would be described as prosecutorial misconduct, which like tampering with evidence, another forte of the BATFE, is or used to be a no no.
What is or is not surprising is beside the point, the point being that certain behavior in a court of law is not acceptable. The presence of such behavior is sufficient to have a guilty verdict tossed out.
Strikes me that respecting the antics of the BATFE and U.S. Attorney's Office in this case, that we here see exampled in all it's glory, the above mentioned unacceptable behavior. I believe that it would be described as prosecutorial misconduct, which like tampering with evidence, another forte of the BATFE, is or used to be a no no.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Let us know when you have ANY facts to back that up. Until then, your allegations are nonsense.
WildhaveyouhuggedyourcharterarmspathfindertodayAlaska ™
cloverleaf762
New member
The criminal conduct of the ATF is well documented, not just in this case, but many others. Just jump on ar15.com and check the documentation, its there in black and white. It will be even easier to see when the full transcripts of this come out.
cloverleaf762
New member
I wonder if this was agent Kookee from this case….?
http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080207/FON0101/80207020
Posted February 7, 2008
ATF agent leaves gun in bathroom at Milwaukee airport
The Associated Press
MILWAUKEE — A special agent returning to Mitchell International Airport left her firearm in a bathroom there Tuesday night, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said.
The special agent immediately alerted authorities when she realized she left her weapon, assistant special agent in charge Guy Thomas said Wednesday. He said it was either recovered by local authorities or a civilian.
Thomas said he didn’t know how long the weapon was left in the bathroom but said the situation ended quickly.
“The important thing here is that the firearm is in the appropriate control,” he said.
The incident is being investigated by the ATF, which is standard procedure, said Thomas, who is based in St. Paul, Minn.
He wouldn’t provide details about the Milwaukee-based agent, such as how long she had been with the bureau.
“It’s a sensitive situation as you can imagine,” he said. “The agent is embarrassed.”
She has not been suspended or placed on leave, Thomas said. He could not say what the outcome of the investigation would be.
The agent was returning home from a long detail assignment and there was some question as to whether she was fatigued, Thomas said.
He said he believed the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department investigated the matter Tuesday night and determined that the agent did not leave her firearm on purpose.
The sheriff’s department referred questions on the matter to the ATF.
http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080207/FON0101/80207020
Posted February 7, 2008
ATF agent leaves gun in bathroom at Milwaukee airport
The Associated Press
MILWAUKEE — A special agent returning to Mitchell International Airport left her firearm in a bathroom there Tuesday night, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said.
The special agent immediately alerted authorities when she realized she left her weapon, assistant special agent in charge Guy Thomas said Wednesday. He said it was either recovered by local authorities or a civilian.
Thomas said he didn’t know how long the weapon was left in the bathroom but said the situation ended quickly.
“The important thing here is that the firearm is in the appropriate control,” he said.
The incident is being investigated by the ATF, which is standard procedure, said Thomas, who is based in St. Paul, Minn.
He wouldn’t provide details about the Milwaukee-based agent, such as how long she had been with the bureau.
“It’s a sensitive situation as you can imagine,” he said. “The agent is embarrassed.”
She has not been suspended or placed on leave, Thomas said. He could not say what the outcome of the investigation would be.
The agent was returning home from a long detail assignment and there was some question as to whether she was fatigued, Thomas said.
He said he believed the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department investigated the matter Tuesday night and determined that the agent did not leave her firearm on purpose.
The sheriff’s department referred questions on the matter to the ATF.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Bullpucky.
We all know about the properly documented cases of ATF "abuse". To say there are "many" is bullpucky.
And ocumented means court documents, not some screeching from a net corner.
And the point is?
WildhaveyouhuggedMYseecamp32sinceicantfinditagainAlaska TM
Wild Alaska writes:
Let us know when you have ANY facts to back that up. Until then, your allegations are nonsense.
-----------------
Try the following on for size. Corcoran v. U.S., U.S. District Court, Pittsburgh, PA, 1985. The judge directed a verdict of acquital, the government having presented it's case. The ATF admitted to having "tinkered" with the rifle(s) in question. Charges against Mr. Corcoran included "being in the business without a license". The jury acquitted on that charge.
Next how about, more recently, the case of Michael Kwan, another of the ATF's "machinegun cases" Mr. Kwan was acquitted. ATF agents admitted to having tampered with physical evidence, the firearm in question.
BTW, this is NOT to say that the ATF has never brought a legitimate case, however you seem to be overly defensive of them. Of course, you are free to so be, however your being so tends to raise questions.
Let us know when you have ANY facts to back that up. Until then, your allegations are nonsense.
-----------------
Try the following on for size. Corcoran v. U.S., U.S. District Court, Pittsburgh, PA, 1985. The judge directed a verdict of acquital, the government having presented it's case. The ATF admitted to having "tinkered" with the rifle(s) in question. Charges against Mr. Corcoran included "being in the business without a license". The jury acquitted on that charge.
Next how about, more recently, the case of Michael Kwan, another of the ATF's "machinegun cases" Mr. Kwan was acquitted. ATF agents admitted to having tampered with physical evidence, the firearm in question.
BTW, this is NOT to say that the ATF has never brought a legitimate case, however you seem to be overly defensive of them. Of course, you are free to so be, however your being so tends to raise questions.
theinvisibleheart
New member
alan, re
ost#67
Alan,
NFA laws/statutes and case law as it is is a mess, much like our tax law and some of our civil/criminal law(for example, it's legal to kill the fetus if it's sanctioned by the mother carrying the fetus but fetus gets treated as a person if it's unauthorized 3rd party).
The problem with NFA law as it stands is that interpretation of legal/illegal C3 item is strictly up to BATFE/NFA people.
I see that as a problem...it would be akin to police being able to decide a specific definition of a certain class of crime and being to arrest and persecute people on such a basis (conflict of interest).
You want to have separation of functions in such a case. Unfortunately, due to a quirk in historical precedences, that is not the case.
Internet and media is a great way of bringing moral public outrage which will, hopefully, in the long run, correct it.
--John
ost#67alan said:
Alan,
NFA laws/statutes and case law as it is is a mess, much like our tax law and some of our civil/criminal law(for example, it's legal to kill the fetus if it's sanctioned by the mother carrying the fetus but fetus gets treated as a person if it's unauthorized 3rd party).
The problem with NFA law as it stands is that interpretation of legal/illegal C3 item is strictly up to BATFE/NFA people.
I see that as a problem...it would be akin to police being able to decide a specific definition of a certain class of crime and being to arrest and persecute people on such a basis (conflict of interest).
You want to have separation of functions in such a case. Unfortunately, due to a quirk in historical precedences, that is not the case.
Internet and media is a great way of bringing moral public outrage which will, hopefully, in the long run, correct it.
--John
Wildalaska
Moderator
I'm familiar with those cases, so whats your point? The relevance of something that happened in 1985 is????????? The relevance of an aquittal back then to the case at hand is??????
How about MOST if not ALMOST ALL of the BATF cases are legitimate? Thats being defensive? Understanding how the CJS works and not painting every agent and AUSA as a fraud, criminal and liar simply because some bubba got caught with a gun and some screechers don't like it is being defensive and "raises questions"? What "questions" would that be?
Like I said, this thread and your comments will be worth a lot more when you give us some facts.....until then, simple nonsense
John you are wrong...read the pdf you posted earlier with respect to scienter...
And I defy anyone to show me a pattern of prosecutions of poor put upon gun owners whose guns merely "malfunction". Give me a break.
Wildhaveyouhuggedyour1851NavyAlaska TM
How about MOST if not ALMOST ALL of the BATF cases are legitimate? Thats being defensive? Understanding how the CJS works and not painting every agent and AUSA as a fraud, criminal and liar simply because some bubba got caught with a gun and some screechers don't like it is being defensive and "raises questions"? What "questions" would that be?
Like I said, this thread and your comments will be worth a lot more when you give us some facts.....until then, simple nonsense
John you are wrong...read the pdf you posted earlier with respect to scienter...
And I defy anyone to show me a pattern of prosecutions of poor put upon gun owners whose guns merely "malfunction". Give me a break.
Wildhaveyouhuggedyour1851NavyAlaska TM
theinvisibleheart
New member
WA, police misconduct
there are large number of police misconduct, be it federal, state, county, or muni. However, it's my understanding that police misconduct in US is low, compared to other countries due to our constitution and state not controlling the media.
People by nature are flawed actors and it's very hard to fire officers who are past probationary period in an agency.
I remember reading a report which found out that small number of officers in an agency tend to be repeat offenders and responsible for large number of public litigations against an agency.
Cop indicted in road-rage incident during which other driver shot him in leg
Officer punished for using pepper spray near ducks
Her wait for french fries ends with a taste of jail
Prosecutors Accuse Former Cop of Strangling Pregnant Girlfriend Jessie Davis
Police Officer Pleaded Guilty to Civil Rights Charges for Stealing Money & Conspiring to Falsely Arrest His Wife
Most of the time, abuses tend to go under reported for the simple reason that lot of incarcerated people are poorly educated and lacks both education and resources to persecute the guilty individuals. It's quite hard to go against the word of a CO or patrol officer unless you have voice recorder or dvd cam recording it in action, which, in the case of prison, is virtually impossible.
Now having said that, in my experiences, legal examiners at NFA are above average law enforcement people, most probably because they are legal examiners, closer to attorneys, than regular LEOs.
--John
there are large number of police misconduct, be it federal, state, county, or muni. However, it's my understanding that police misconduct in US is low, compared to other countries due to our constitution and state not controlling the media.
People by nature are flawed actors and it's very hard to fire officers who are past probationary period in an agency.
I remember reading a report which found out that small number of officers in an agency tend to be repeat offenders and responsible for large number of public litigations against an agency.
Cop indicted in road-rage incident during which other driver shot him in leg
Star Tribune said:
Officer punished for using pepper spray near ducks
Bay News 9 said:
Her wait for french fries ends with a taste of jail
St. Petersburg Times said:
Prosecutors Accuse Former Cop of Strangling Pregnant Girlfriend Jessie Davis
FOX News said:
Police Officer Pleaded Guilty to Civil Rights Charges for Stealing Money & Conspiring to Falsely Arrest His Wife
US Department of Justice said:
Most of the time, abuses tend to go under reported for the simple reason that lot of incarcerated people are poorly educated and lacks both education and resources to persecute the guilty individuals. It's quite hard to go against the word of a CO or patrol officer unless you have voice recorder or dvd cam recording it in action, which, in the case of prison, is virtually impossible.
Now having said that, in my experiences, legal examiners at NFA are above average law enforcement people, most probably because they are legal examiners, closer to attorneys, than regular LEOs.
--John
Last edited:
theinvisibleheart
New member
Wa, Nfa
I've actually called NFA several times to ask about legal technicalities.
PDF report does not give any detailed info on this particular case but I'm familiar with MG being interpreted differently by BATFE/NFA (sear, lever, receiver, shoelace, etc.) as well as cases of constructive possession.
BATFE/NFA does define interpretation of what constitutes MG.
I've actually called NFA several times to ask about legal technicalities.
PDF report does not give any detailed info on this particular case but I'm familiar with MG being interpreted differently by BATFE/NFA (sear, lever, receiver, shoelace, etc.) as well as cases of constructive possession.
BATFE/NFA does define interpretation of what constitutes MG.
theinvisibleheart
New member
best place for stuff like this
is either Sturmgewehr.com and Subguns.com where people (Class 3 dealers, attorneys, buyers/sellers) congregate.
In some cases, like Atkins Accelerator(AA), at one point, BATFE/NFA stated it was not a MG initially and later, stated that it was. BATFE/NFA's action drove the manufacturer out of business.
is either Sturmgewehr.com and Subguns.com where people (Class 3 dealers, attorneys, buyers/sellers) congregate.
In some cases, like Atkins Accelerator(AA), at one point, BATFE/NFA stated it was not a MG initially and later, stated that it was. BATFE/NFA's action drove the manufacturer out of business.
theinvisibleheart
New member
validity of information
doesn't depend on the source.
For example, WND or for that matter, widely used AP (most news source, including major players share common news resources) and sources such as NYT quite often publish errors/incorrect information as well as correct info.
Just because the source of news is someone you disagree with doesn't mean it's not true or correct.
Just because the source of news is someone you agree with or reputable doesn't mean it's always true or correct.
doesn't depend on the source.
For example, WND or for that matter, widely used AP (most news source, including major players share common news resources) and sources such as NYT quite often publish errors/incorrect information as well as correct info.
Just because the source of news is someone you disagree with doesn't mean it's not true or correct.
Just because the source of news is someone you agree with or reputable doesn't mean it's always true or correct.
Wildalaska
Moderator
havent seen any "news" yet, only some opinions.
WildhaveyouhuggedyourRemingtonModel30todayAlaska TM
cloverleaf762
New member
CNN is waiting for the right time to run there show on it. I'm told they are waiting for 3 things right now.
1) All the crap about the elections to pass so as to draw a larger audience on this.
2) Release of the full transcripts of the case.
3) Ruling by the judge on some post trial motions for acquittal based on numerous points of misconduct and evidentiary cover up by the government.
But in the mean time the first hand witness accounts by Len Savage, and the recent report my Mr. Knox should suffice. Especially following some of the excerps from the partial transcript.
From the current partial release of the transcripts;
Begin Excerpt
MR. HAANSTAD: (Interrupting) First of all, I'm not
sure if I understand why that's relevant, the hammer follow. I
mean, there's no indication that that's what was going on with
respect to this particular gun. And there's no indication that
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.
MR. FAHL: And that's where I think we have some
issues. The Staples case, footnote one Justice Thomas said you
have to -- you know, it has to go without stopping -- until then
-- and that was adopted by the 7th Circuit.
And under that jury instruction, if that one goes
through, you know, we'll have an issue about the hammer follow
and what happened with the three rounds and then stopping.
It definitely will go to knowledge.
MR. HAANSTAD: I kind of wonder if we should resolve
that before we sort of risk confusing the jury on an issue
that's not going to be of any significance in the case.
I mean, I've read Staples and I'm familiar with
footnote 1.
BY MR. FAHL:
Q. Now, Mr. Savage, you testified that you examined this gun
today?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And in what way was the gun examined?
A. Well, I wasn't allowed to touch it…
….CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HAANSTAD:
Q. Doesn't it say any firearm that fires automatically more
than one round, single function of a trigger without manual
reload?
A. Shoots or is designed to shoot. That is not designed to
shoot more than one round per function of the trigger.
Q. It says "or," right? Shoots or is designed to shoot.
A. I don't have -- there's actually six separate definitions,
but the bottom line is that is not the frame or receiver of a machine gun, that is not a machine gun, that is a malfunctioning
defective weapon.
Q. And you're confident making that determination without ever
having test fired it yourself.
A. After viewing the video and viewing Agent Kingery's first
report and his second report -- and since they contradict each
other he's got a 50 percent error rate going -- I would not fire
that firearm until I took it apart and repaired it.
End quotes.
1) All the crap about the elections to pass so as to draw a larger audience on this.
2) Release of the full transcripts of the case.
3) Ruling by the judge on some post trial motions for acquittal based on numerous points of misconduct and evidentiary cover up by the government.
But in the mean time the first hand witness accounts by Len Savage, and the recent report my Mr. Knox should suffice. Especially following some of the excerps from the partial transcript.
From the current partial release of the transcripts;
Begin Excerpt
MR. HAANSTAD: (Interrupting) First of all, I'm not
sure if I understand why that's relevant, the hammer follow. I
mean, there's no indication that that's what was going on with
respect to this particular gun. And there's no indication that
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.
MR. FAHL: And that's where I think we have some
issues. The Staples case, footnote one Justice Thomas said you
have to -- you know, it has to go without stopping -- until then
-- and that was adopted by the 7th Circuit.
And under that jury instruction, if that one goes
through, you know, we'll have an issue about the hammer follow
and what happened with the three rounds and then stopping.
It definitely will go to knowledge.
MR. HAANSTAD: I kind of wonder if we should resolve
that before we sort of risk confusing the jury on an issue
that's not going to be of any significance in the case.
I mean, I've read Staples and I'm familiar with
footnote 1.
BY MR. FAHL:
Q. Now, Mr. Savage, you testified that you examined this gun
today?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And in what way was the gun examined?
A. Well, I wasn't allowed to touch it…
….CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. HAANSTAD:
Q. Doesn't it say any firearm that fires automatically more
than one round, single function of a trigger without manual
reload?
A. Shoots or is designed to shoot. That is not designed to
shoot more than one round per function of the trigger.
Q. It says "or," right? Shoots or is designed to shoot.
A. I don't have -- there's actually six separate definitions,
but the bottom line is that is not the frame or receiver of a machine gun, that is not a machine gun, that is a malfunctioning
defective weapon.
Q. And you're confident making that determination without ever
having test fired it yourself.
A. After viewing the video and viewing Agent Kingery's first
report and his second report -- and since they contradict each
other he's got a 50 percent error rate going -- I would not fire
that firearm until I took it apart and repaired it.
End quotes.