US vs Olofson -misfire semi-auto = machine gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
He is clearly an anti government zealot and blight on the reputation of gun owners.

I am a Soldier and it saddens me that he was a Soldier. The Army has no place for people like him. I am surprised his shenanigans, including a convictin for illegally carrying a weapon, hacking a government server, and recruiting members of his unit for his extremist group, were tolerated for so long. This is just an example of someone falling through the cracks of the system. Thankfully he no longer serves in the Army. I don't know the final characterization of his current discharge. When a service member is separated for misconduct AR 135-178 requires that the discharge be characterized as under other than honorable unless a Soldier's record is so meritorious that such a discharge would not be appropriate. His record deserves no such consideration.

As wildalaska put it, don't be blinded by the gunwoobie. This guy was not a law abiding responsible gun owner and he does not eserve our support.

I am sure there are cases where the government doesn't do right in a criminal prosecution but this is not one of those cases.
 
This guy was not a law abiding responsible gun owner and he does not eserve our support.
Click to expand...

No, he does not; but unfortunately the answers to his questions/problems are things that will affect law-abiding, responsible gunowners just as much as anti-government radicals.

Unfortunately for us, a lot of gun rights issues are decided by people who we all agree shouldn't have firearms. The problem is when the rule is drawn so broadly that it can easily be used to deny rights to those formerly law-abiding citizens as well.
 
I am sure there are cases where the government doesn't do right in a criminal prosecution but this is not one of those cases.
Click to expand...

Actually, there may very well have been a Brady violation here, but iirc, a Brady violation qua Brady violation is still evaluated on it's effect on the outcome.

WildcorrectmeifiamwrongAlaska ™
 
Unfortunately for us, a lot of gun rights issues are decided by people who we all agree shouldn't have firearms. The problem is when the rule is drawn so broadly that it can easily be used to deny rights to those formerly law-abiding citizens as well.
Click to expand...

Well stated, and I suspect that's GOA's consideration, as well.
 
Well stated, and I suspect that's GOA's consideration, as well.
Click to expand...

Balderdash. Do you guys really think that the BATFE has nothing better to do than manufacture a case against Joe Sixpack....read that sentencing brief again. This guy was bad paper and got caught on the radar. Its far easier for the government to investigate someone bad than make up something against someone good.

WildeventheoneswhogotoffarentposterchildrenAlaska ™
 
The definition of a machine gun should not be an issue here because the weapon did not malfunction causing it to fire automatically. The weapon in question was clearly modified with parts from an M16 and that is what caused it to fire automatically.


Actually, there may very well have been a Brady violation here, but iirc, a Brady violation qua Brady violation is still evaluated on it's effect on the outcome.
Click to expand...

I believe the defense would have to show that the withheld evidence would have changed the outcome of the case. The appeals court will determine this issue. But unless the letter stated that all of the parts in the rifle were made that way at the factory I don't see how this would be a valid claim. I don't know any AR 15s that come stock with a 3 position selector switch.
 
I don't know any AR 15s that come stock with a 3 position selector switch.
Click to expand...

I dont beleive any major manufacturer has even put out ARs with m16 parts (I could be wrong)...

If Olofson wanted to back up his claim, why didnt he subpoenae Oly Arms....even assuming it was relevant.

WildaniwouldarguethatitwasnotAlaska ™
 
Balderdash. Do you guys really think that the BATFE has nothing better to do than manufacture a case against Joe Sixpack....read that sentencing brief again. This guy was bad paper and got caught on the radar. Its far easier for the government to investigate someone bad than make up something against someone good.
Click to expand...


Exactly!

The reason this case was prosecuted is that he belongs to an extremist organization and he modified an AR15 to fire automatically.Th
 
I dont beleive any major manufacturer has even put out ARs with m16 parts (I could be wrong)...
Click to expand...

I thought a few used an M16 bolt carrier? I could be wrong. But most don't use any you are correct. Most avoid it because there is no need.

And you are correct Olofson could have subpeonaed Olympic Arms. I suspect he didn't because the testimony that would have been presented would not have supported his case.
 
vranasaurus said:
The definition of a machine gun should not be an issue here because the weapon did not malfunction causing it to fire automatically. The weapon in question was clearly modified with parts from an M16 and that is what caused it to fire automatically.
Click to expand...

My take based on the limited information from the briefs and affidavits: the weapon was essentially slamfiring (due to the M16 parts), since the AR design will not allow the firing pin to protrude until the bolt is fully locked, the result was either automatic fire or a stoppage if the weapon couldn't chamber the round fast enough.

The definition of machinegun is at issue because the Staples definition excludes weapons that fire automatically due to slamfires, cooking off, etc. (regardless of whether that is due to wear, excess heat or deliberate malfeasance). The statutory definition says that if a single pull of the trigger results in multiple rounds, that is a machinegun. You can see where that interpretation of the law might be problematic for law-abiding, responsible gun owners who have a cook-off, a slamfire, a rifle that doubles, etc.

As for "clearly modified", the problem is that isn't so clear.

WildAlaska said:
I dont beleive any major manufacturer has even put out ARs with m16 parts (I could be wrong)...
Click to expand...

Actually, I used to build ARs in college for a friend who was a SOT and FFL in the early 1990s. We built using Oly and Bushmaster lowers on Nesard part kits and regularly received parts kits from Nesard that included M16 bolt carriers, M16 hammer, and M16 triggers. During the late 1980s - early 1990s time frame, it wasn't unusual for AR manufacturers to use M16 fire control parts to some degree - which is exactly why the ATF put out several letters on that particular issue.

If Olofson wanted to back up his claim, why didnt he subpoenae Oly Arms....even assuming it was relevant.
Click to expand...

I couldn't begin to speculate. Olofson was represented by a Federal public defender according to the GOA brief, so that may have played a part in the decision. Regardless, it doesn't really matter to me whether Olofson could have obtained the evidence direct from Oly. The real issue here is that the ATF acknowledged there was correspondence between Olympic and ATF regarding this rifle; but then refused to turn it over. Maybe it was exculpatory, maybe it was not; but I am not real comfortable with the prosecutor being the person who gets to decide that. I would have liked to see the trial judge exercise a little more skepticism here.

The fact that Olofson was an anti-government wackjob is why I think the judge gave the prosecutor a lot of running room; but anti-government wackjobs have the same rights as us law-abiding, responsible gun owners. If they don't get their rights, then we shouldn't be surprised when we don't get ours in a similar situation.

Personally, I think Olofson is going to jail regardless of how his appeal plays out. Unless GOA talks the Court of Appeals into using the Staples definition (unlikely in my view), none of those items are likely to change the outcome of the case - but it will establish protections for the rest of us.
 
You can see where that interpretation of the law might be problematic for law-abiding, responsible gun owners who have a cook-off, a slamfire, a rifle that doubles, etc.
Click to expand...

Balderdash. A US atty worth his salt wouldnt prosecute a cookoff absent more

Actually, I used to build ARs in college for a friend who was a SOT and FFL in the early 1990s. We built using Oly and Bushmaster lowers on Nesard part kits and regularly received parts kits from Nesard that included M16 bolt carriers, M16 hammer, and M16 triggers.
Click to expand...

I rest my case......that was YOUR build using parts kits from a junk supplier. Factory guns don't use M16 parts.

Maybe it was exculpatory, maybe it was not; but I am not real comfortable with the prosecutor being the person who gets to decide that.
Click to expand...

Have you read the US Attorney's manual recently? It is their duty to turn over brady material. Their failure to do so and get caught at it is the worst thing that can happen to an AUSA, especially when the Appeals Court looks at it.

Then rest of your analysis is pure reaching...forget about the gunwoobie and look at it from a legal point of view

In point of fact, innocent folks dont get picked on very often, if at all...the Gov't has real baddies to chase

WildundertheradarAlaska ™
 
Some builders will use F/A bolt carriers, usually as an option. However, the bolt carrier itself really isn't a part that the ATF is concerned with; they are far more concerned about the parts of the fire control group (trigger, hammer, disconnector, selector, and auto sear if present).

Makers have gotten far more stringent about selling F/A fire control parts, but will sell a F/A bolt carrier without batting an eye.
 
Balderdash. A US atty worth his salt wouldnt prosecute a cookoff absent more.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad that you have that level of faith in our Government, Ken. Personally, I would prefer to just write the law so that it didn't define obvious mechanical malfunctions as machineguns. That solution works whether the U.S. Attorney is worth his salt or not and I think GOA is pursuing a worthwhile goal in working towards that (although the path they have taken strikes me as ineffective and unlikely to succeed).

I rest my case......that was YOUR build using parts kits from a junk supplier. Factory guns don't use M16 parts.
Click to expand...

Clearly you haven't been in court in a long, long time if you are willing to rest your case on that. What is the logic there in any case? Because an FFL used parts kits from a junk supplier to build AR15s, it is therefore impossible that any factory manufacturer of that era used M16 parts in AR15s? Perhaps you could connect those dots for me since it seems you skipped a few steps on the way to resting your case.

In any case, my point was that this was an FFL. Does your average gunowner know or care whether it came from the factory like that or was modified by the FFL? Is there any significant difference to them and is that relevant to whether they "knowingly transferred a machinegun." Further, if the Oly/ATF letter isn't exculpatory but confirms what the prosecution already knows, why not share it?

Have you read the US Attorney's manual recently? It is their duty to turn over brady material. Their failure to do so and get caught at it is the worst thing that can happen to an AUSA, especially when the Appeals Court looks at it.
Click to expand...

And yet it still happens.

Not to mention that more than one case has seen a U. S. Attorney withhold information helpful to the defense at trial and then later argue on appeal that the information did not reach the standard of exculpatory evidence required by Brady.

Tell me, what valid reason could the prosecutor have to not want to share this letter? Under what circumstance should he not have to produce it?

In point of fact, innocent folks dont get picked on very often, if at all...the Gov't has real baddies to chase
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the fact that innocent folks only occasionally go to jail due to our desire to punish gunwoobies is a great comfort to everyone except those innocent folks.
 
Do some people never tire of spouting off about things they have no clue about? Do they never tire of repeating tired old innuendo when the facts are easily available to them? Do people never tire of being the worn-out old stereotype of the hysterical gun owner that cries "conspiracy" every time some jerk does something illegal and gets caught?

The gun DID NOT malfunction and cause it to fire multiple rounds. The gun HAD BEEN ILLEGALLY ALTERED for just that task. The man that altered it even informed the person borrowing it of this fact and warned him against using that setting.

Give it a rest already and spend your time defending someone that is not a criminal for once.
 
Last edited:
Playboypenguin said:
Give it a rest already and spend your time defending someone that is not a criminal
Click to expand...

The more I read this thread the more I think this guy is a bad horse to pick. I think he did wrong and got caught. I'm not sure I could defend his actions.
 
And yet it still happens.
Click to expand...

yep. you have given us two state cases (not apllicable here) and two cases where the Gubmint got caught.....and the error was corrected.

I am sure you know about US vs. Ted Stevens which is still pending.

The District Judges hate to be reversed. They are extermely cognizant of Brady. I would defer to the expertise of the trial judge here. You are now grasping at the same straws as Olafoson's layers.

it is therefore impossible that any factory manufacturer of that era used M16 parts in AR15s?
Click to expand...

We are talking about major manufactures and in particular, Oly. Yes.

Let me ask you this. GunGuy buys an AR from FFL Joe. GunGuy shoots it and it runs full auto. If he goes right to the BATF and says, hey dudes, I bought this from FFL Joe and it runs full auto, you think Gunguy is getting indicted?

No.

Now the Feds go to FFL Joe and say, hey you sold this gun to Gunguy and it went full auto, whats the scoop. FFL Joe says, hey wait look at my books, I bought this from Militia Patriot AR Inc, came in yesterday and then sold it to Gun Guy...you think they are gonna screw with FFL Joe?

Not. They want the real big fish...

Now lets change the facts a bit. They go to FFL Joe and he has bins of M16 parts, conversion manuals, has a prior record, has militia pamphlets on the walls and emails talking about ZOG and suchlike and when they ask him about it he starts singing various contradictory tunes.....


Guess what: US vs Olafson.

Criminal investigation is not a TV show. it is a careful process where every i must be dotted and t must be crossed or some slimy defense lawyer gets the baddie off. And for you, by the way, to imply that federal Public defenders are incompetant is beyond beleif...try to get a job as one...and they have forgotten more about Federal criminal cases after one year on the job than you or I will ever know.

Olafson is not a martyr to the evil minions of the JBT ZOGites. Based on whats adduced so far, he is a criminal. I will say no more till the Circuit renders it's decision. You guys can continue the ifwhenmaybebuts as long as you want

WildverytrulyyoursAlaska ™
 
My take based on the limited information from the briefs and affidavits: the weapon was essentially slamfiring (due to the M16 parts), since the AR design will not allow the firing pin to protrude until the bolt is fully locked, the result was either automatic fire or a stoppage if the weapon couldn't chamber the round fast enough.

The definition of machinegun is at issue because the Staples definition excludes weapons that fire automatically due to slamfires, cooking off, etc. (regardless of whether that is due to wear, excess heat or deliberate malfeasance). The statutory definition says that if a single pull of the trigger results in multiple rounds, that is a machinegun. You can see where that interpretation of the law might be problematic for law-abiding, responsible gun owners who have a cook-off, a slamfire, a rifle that doubles, etc.
Click to expand...

The weapon was modified. The modifications caused the weapon to fire automatically. Even if it fired automatically by slam fire it was modified to do so and that is the issue. Had the rifle been left in it's factory configuration would it have done this? Probably not. And if it had done this in a factory configuration would it have been prosecuted? Only if the owner failed to report it or fix the problem, the ATF would likely contact olympic arms and figure out if they are selling machine guns.

If Olofson prevails all a person would have to do is modify a weapon so that it fires automatically by "malfunction" meaning its not a machine gun.

To me there is a difference between a malfunction and modifications that intended to cause something.
 
Balderdash. Do you guys really think that the BATFE has nothing better to do than manufacture a case against Joe Sixpack
Click to expand...

I think that if you look at the history of the BATFE, you'll answer your own questions with respect to the way they've treated good decent law abiding citizens in the past--and ruined their lives.

That hasn't happened for a while, as far as I know, and when it did, it involved relatively few agents. But it happened none the less.


However, under the new administration, who, with a straight face, could say it can't start happening again. Eric Holder makes Janet Reno look like Shirley Temple.
 
I think that if you look at the history of the BATFE, you'll answer your own questions with respect to the way they've treated good decent law abiding citizens in the past--and ruined their lives.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah I know, Koresh, Vicki Weaver blah blah blah:barf:

Read my post again. manufacture. decent. law abiding.

I'll agree with you that the ATF and the government shouldnt be trusted because of isolated incidents when you agree gun owners shouldnt be trusted due to isloated incidents.

Same logic.

WildbutwedigressAlaska TM
 
Thanks everyone for your responses to my questions... That's kinda what I thought.

The problem I have been having is self-caused. I migrated from version 9.3 of Suse linux to version 11.0 (last Sept), and in the process some of my PDF's were lost. Specifically, the PDFs relating to the Olofson case. So while I thought I new what was what, I no longer had the data or urls to the data to back up my thinking (don't we all love upgrades?).

Now, after reading the very educational (and for me, entertaining) posts after my questions, I can safely say (again), That Olofson is a crook and that he knew he was a crook.

However, I am in agreement that the statutory definition is at odds with Staples. This is a case where case law should prevail over the strict statutory reading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top