pvtschultz
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Mea Culpa! I thought it was an appeals case for some reason. :banghead:
Mea Culpa! I thought it was an appeals case for some reason. :banghead:
There was no malfunction. The parts as installed when the firearm was tested (M16 trigger group minus the auto sear) were in perfectly servicable and properly functioning order. The parts as installed when the firearm was tested allowed a condition of hammer follow to take place which allowed multiple rounds to discharge with a single pull of the trigger. Olofson's claim is that the ATF or their star witness installed those parts.Case in point: The case of David Olofson. The U.S. 7th circuit court of appeals has upheld Olofson's conviction of selling a machinegun even though the automatic fire was a result of a malfunction of a semi-automatic weapon.
Adelman is an old school dyed in the wool liberal. Could hurt cuz its a 2a case, but could help cuz its a 4a case. Either way, good luck!!!!!Judge Adelman
Lammie wrote:There was no malfunction. The parts as installed when the firearm was tested (M16 trigger group minus the auto sear) were in perfectly servicable and properly functioning order. The parts as installed when the firearm was tested allowed a condition of hammer follow to take place which allowed multiple rounds to discharge with a single pull of the trigger. Olofson's claim is that the ATF or their star witness installed those parts.Case in point: The case of David Olofson. The U.S. 7th circuit court of appeals has upheld Olofson's conviction of selling a machinegun even though the automatic fire was a result of a malfunction of a semi-automatic weapon.
My understanding is that the BATF could not readly duplicate the slamfire malfunction on Olefsons firearm without using ammunition known for their very soft primers. Plus it took several attepts to duplicate the malfunction too.
Has anyone here ever had an SKS slamfire and fire multiple rounds? I have seen it on several occasions. it can happen from not getting all the cosmoline out of the bolt, it can happen from having a free-float pin among other common SKS issues.
Edited to add http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIC_enUS311US311&q=Olefson+%2b+primera google search using Olefson + Primer"By this time, the weapon had been in the hands of the ATF for four months. What caused the functional change in the weapon to fire as it had not done before is unknown, although the ATF agent did acknowledge that the change in the outcome from the October test resulted from a change to 'softer primer' ammunition," the appellate documents said.
Here is my cite Where is yours?
Four of the AR-15’s
1 fire control components were parts fromM-16 rifles: the trigger, hammer, disconnector, and selector switch.
The government’s expert testified that he used military grade ammunition the first time he test-fired the AR-15 with the selector switch in the unmarked position and that the gun fired only one round. Later, using civilian-grade ammunition, he conducted two more test-fires of the weapon in the unmarked mode.
[/align]We do not see how that information could have exculpated Olofson; section 5845(b) does not require compliance with ATF test-fire procedures in order for a weapon to qualify as a machinegun, nor must the weapon fire any particular grade of ammunition or in the prohibited fashion during the first test-fire.
[/align]Q. Whereas in the automatic position what happens?
A. The hammer would be allowed to fly forward and strike the primer.
Q. Okay. And in this case could you see whether the -- when the second round was chambered, whether the hammer hit that second round?
A. Yes, there was a dimple in the primer where the -- actually the hammer strikes the firing pin and the firing pin strikes the primer. There was a dimple made in the primer by the firing pin.
A. Yes, sir. It was due to the ammunition I was using. Even though it was commercially available ammunition, it was a military grade ammunition which has a much harder primer than standard civilian ammunition.
[/align]Q. Well, with that explanation in mind, you performed a second test using standard civilian grade ammunition, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And can you explain that test?
A. Yes, sir. In that test I fired a total of 60 rounds with three magazines, 20 rounds in each magazine, and also three different types of ammunition. I used Winchester, Remington and Federal ammunition. The test was conducted similarly to the first test in that I also checked the safety first, but I did not go into the semi-automatic position, I went directly to the full auto position and squeezed the trigger.
Q. Why didn't you test the semiauto position again?
A. Why did I not?
Q. Yes.
A. I knew that the weapon functioned already.
Q. Okay.
A. And that was the purpose for firing it in the semiauto position.
Q. So you just checked the safe position, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Found again that it worked?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And then you put the selector switch in the unmarked third position?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what happened when you did that? First of all, you said that you used Federal, Winchester, and Remington brands?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. 20 rounds of each?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay.
This is what is misleading. Olofson never presented any evidence or used any defense in court that it was a "malfunction due to worn out parts".
All of this comes to mind because of a recent federal trial, the case of U.S. v. Olofson in Milwaukee Wisconsin, in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (instigators in both the Ballew and Branch Davidian atrocities) charged a National Guard Drill Instructor of "unlawful transfer of a machinegun" because, owing to a worn or broken part, it would sometimes -- very rarely, actually -- fire more than one round of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger.
This is not, in fact, any kind of illegal "enhancement", it is a dangerous malfunction. Len Savage, the expert I spoke with before I started this article tells me that when such a malfunction occurs, the particular weapon involved fires at three times the rate considered safe.
"Respectfully request a jury trial"??
Nothing wrong with being polite!
Who get's to decide if it's heard before a judge or a judge and jury?
Not likely - too many facts are in dispute.Well the constitution (7A) has something to say about it but the judge would rule on the issue (which may be appealed).
My thinking is that it would better to not have a jury and have the case decided as a matter of law if it's possible.