-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
United States v. Olofson
- Thread starter exelci
- Start date
Have Gun - Will Carry
Regular Member
What happened to David Olofson is BS... A travesty of justice... Perfect example of why "zero tolerance" policies are stupid and don't work... Crap like this simply should not happen in an ostensibly free country, but it does...
And unfortunately, it's now the way the Injustice System in our country functions. How pathetic.
Not to mention scary.
I don't think the law was ever meant to be passed as a zero tolerance policy, I believe the application was ment to be used with common sense.
if it fired multiple rounds, jammed, and then he cleared it, put it back in it's carrying case and stopped using it, then that eliminates the intent to use it as a machine gun, or have it fire as such, visiting a gunsmith to figure out what the problem is is also evidence to the lack of intent to commit a crime.
the judge and the witnesses/enforcement officers are not using common sense, they are just looking for a conviction with the prosecuting attorney
JamesCanby
Activist Member
Incredible, and a blatant miscarriage of justice.
I was attending an AR-15 class at the NRA Range. As the last live-fire exercise the instructor lined the class up and told us to load a 30-round magazine and, on command, fire as fast as we could (while controlling the muzzle -- he wanted us to experience how fast the AR could cycle and still remain on target). After my first 9 semi-auto-fired rounds, my AR went full auto for about 4 rounds and then stopped. I fired another several rounds semi-auto and the AR then went full auto for another three rounds. The instructor had me make the AR safe and advised me to take it to my gunsmith.
After I explained the above situation to my gunsmith, he examined the trigger group and discovered that the hammer pin had broken and worked its way loose enough to cant the hammer in such a way that it could not catch the sear and kept firing until it had vibrated back into position. Replacing the hammer pin took about 5 minutes and my AR has not malfunctioned since.
The point of my story is that a firearm has to be DESIGNED as a machine gun in order to BE a machine gun. Just because a firearm part breaks and the firearm malfunctions does not make it a "machine gun." This is what happens when prosecutors who are ignorant of firearm construction and operation try to apply the law.
I was attending an AR-15 class at the NRA Range. As the last live-fire exercise the instructor lined the class up and told us to load a 30-round magazine and, on command, fire as fast as we could (while controlling the muzzle -- he wanted us to experience how fast the AR could cycle and still remain on target). After my first 9 semi-auto-fired rounds, my AR went full auto for about 4 rounds and then stopped. I fired another several rounds semi-auto and the AR then went full auto for another three rounds. The instructor had me make the AR safe and advised me to take it to my gunsmith.
After I explained the above situation to my gunsmith, he examined the trigger group and discovered that the hammer pin had broken and worked its way loose enough to cant the hammer in such a way that it could not catch the sear and kept firing until it had vibrated back into position. Replacing the hammer pin took about 5 minutes and my AR has not malfunctioned since.
The point of my story is that a firearm has to be DESIGNED as a machine gun in order to BE a machine gun. Just because a firearm part breaks and the firearm malfunctions does not make it a "machine gun." This is what happens when prosecutors who are ignorant of firearm construction and operation try to apply the law.
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
How about you provide a cite to refute his opinion.
I think, OC, that the reason for gutshot requesting a cite is because in a court of law, opinions, aside from the judges, mean jack squat.
the fact we have a human who's opinion can preside over law, common sense, and someone's life essentially is, IMO what is broken in this system.
the fact we have a human who's opinion can preside over law, common sense, and someone's life essentially is, IMO what is broken in this system.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Malfunction is not excluded.
From reading the complaint (cited), it seems that Olofson put a 3 position selector in the AR15 and knew that it would fire multiple rounds with one pull. He modified the rifle with an M-16 selector and was trying to sell it with an ad placed at a gas station. I call "shenanigans"!
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1407580.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1407580.html
Have Gun - Will Carry
Regular Member
I didn't mean the law was ever intended to be zero tolerance, simply that it ended up being applied in that way. The ATF decided that they would prosecute him as if it were a ZT policy, even knowing that it was not intentionally modified to fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull.
After all, they need to scare the average American into believing they will be prosecuted for merely wanting a gun to fire full-auto! [/sarc]
hummm olofson has been prosecuted, i do not believe he is scared into believing...
ipse
Whitney
Regular Member
NFA Items
NFA Items are no joke. The citation in this case would likely be a "letter ruling" by the BATF, you can not cite a letter ruling as law. Letter rulings are basically crap because they can be changed on a whim.
If you have dabbled in NFA items you may recall a couple of laughable incidents where the BATF issued a letter ruling claiming a shoestring is a machine gun, and also stated "Chore Boy" pot scrubbers were NFA items.
NO JOKE ! ATF classifies Chore Boy pot scrubber pads NFA firearms
I am not convinced Olofson fully understood the ramifications, yet ignorance of the law..........
If you are altering or manufacturing firearms get into the books and publications the BATF puts on their website.
~Whitney
NFA Items are no joke. The citation in this case would likely be a "letter ruling" by the BATF, you can not cite a letter ruling as law. Letter rulings are basically crap because they can be changed on a whim.
If you have dabbled in NFA items you may recall a couple of laughable incidents where the BATF issued a letter ruling claiming a shoestring is a machine gun, and also stated "Chore Boy" pot scrubbers were NFA items.
NO JOKE ! ATF classifies Chore Boy pot scrubber pads NFA firearms
I am not convinced Olofson fully understood the ramifications, yet ignorance of the law..........
If you are altering or manufacturing firearms get into the books and publications the BATF puts on their website.
~Whitney
KBCraig
Regular Member
The danger in any law is not its intent, but how it may be used by someone who only cares about getting a conviction.
OC for ME
Regular Member
It seems that that was done, so to speak, in the op linked article.
Did you read the linked story in the op?
Then what's your point in asking for a cite? Either his contention is correct, or it is incorrect, there is no "maybe it's a machine gun" option.