Posted on 08/28/2008 11:58:50 AM PDT by neverdem
Affidavit failed to reveal 1st test showing rifle was semi-automatic
The federal government allegedly suppressed evidence and edited a legal definition in a Wisconsin case against a man who ultimately was convicted of transferring a machine gun, according to an appeal document.
WND reported earlier on the case against David Olofson, who has begun serving a 30-month prison term for his actions, even though his defense lawyers argued the AR-15 rifle he loaned to a friend was broken, not a machine gun.
The Gun Owners of America launched a campaign to help support Olofson's family while he was serving time, and his lawyers were working on an appeal. The appeal now has been filed with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Olofson, of Berlin, Wis., surrendered to federal authorities July 2 to begin his prison term, leaving 2nd Amendment advocates enraged.
Said Larry Pratt, chief of the GOA, "A gun that malfunctions is not a machine gun. What the [federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] has done in the Olofson case has set a precedent that could make any of the millions of Americans that own semi-automatic firearms suddenly the owner [of] an unregistered machine gun at the moment the gun malfunctions."
The appeal includes a number of claims about the inadequacy of the district court handling of the case, but it focuses on several parts – the testing of the weapon at issue, the legal definition of "automatic," the court's refusal to include definitions that defense attorneys said were needed and a refusal on the part of both the court and prosecutors to explain the background of the gun model. The gun was made by Olympic Arms and had been subject to a recall because the maker apparently included some parts from the...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
30 Months? Wow, I could understand if the weapon was used during the commission of a crime. This whole case wreaks of over-zealous LEO’s and jackbooted Feds. When you think about it logically, the law makes no sense anyway.
If you intended to use an auto weapon for a crime or nefarious purpose this law wouldn’t matter to you anyway. I suppose the next move will be the ATF testing all semi-auto owners to see how fast we can tap the trigger? The whole thing is a bit ridiculous. Surely they know you can send as many rounds down range as quickly with a semi-auto as with some converted/defective pseudo-auto. It seems it all boils down to whether or not one has to pull the trigger or not and that isn’t exactly an arduous task.
This guys REAL problem was not the gun that malfunctioned. He sold 80% receivers and helped people finish them on his machinery. The government has gone after several other people that do the same. The charges may be different from one 80% seller to another, but several of them have ended up in jail.
This is the first I’ve heard that the gun had M-16 fire control parts. If so, that’s a whole different ball game.
The original defense claim, as I recall, was a worn/malfunctioning sear.
Indeed. As Paul Harvey would say, we are now hearing "the rest of the story."
I am glad to see that GOA has taken up the fight. I guess the NRA couldn’t be bothered.
And the sad part is, there are probably rats at every single gun store and firing range.
Can’t you own full autos if you have and FFL? Why not just get one instead of messing w/ 80% receivers? I know, they’re expensive, but not nearly as expensive as going to the range and ripping off a couple thousand rounds on full auto. And cetainly less expensive that defense counsel.
PS I’m all for gun rights, shall-issue, carry w/out license reqs, .50 cals, etc., but I do draw the line at full autos w/out at least some licensing. Just too dangerous. One nutjob or thug mowing down a couple dozen people with one would be too much of a tragedy, not to mention what it would do to the whole gun rights movement. And that prohibition does seem to work - not many criminals blaze away with full autos. Or is that because of the cost?
“...but I do draw the line at full autos w/out at least some licensing. Just too dangerous.”
A real divide and conquer statement Piytar. I can’t have a legal firearm because you don’t like them? Sounds a lot like Jim Whatisname. Black guns are EEEviLLL, can’t let anyone have one of those! (never mind that it is the man with his finger on the trigger that you should be worrying about, not the tool).
Personally I would rather be shot at with a full auto than with a full auto. After the first shot with a full auto your chances of hitting what you are aiming at go way down, whereas the man with the semi will hit you with every shot. The armed forces didn’t specify 3 shot bursts for the current M4s and M16s because they were worried about saving ammo.
You need a special FFL license (Class 3?) to own a full-auto. A regular FFL will not work. The 80% receivers are for constructing semi-auto versions only. That is a completely different matter.
You cannot build a new full-auto (except for sale to police or military) for personal use. The only full-autos that an individual can own are ones that already existed when the law banning new ones was passed (1986?). That is, of course, if you wish to remain legal. Of course, we also know that if a person can finish a semi-auto 80% receiver, they can finish it into a fully-auto 80% receiver.
There have been at least three sellers of 80% receivers that have been raided by the BATF in the last couple of years. The reasons given for each one are different (and none of them said the reason had to do with 80% receivers), but I think they were just an excuse to close down 80% receiver suppliers.
From what I’ve gathered, this case amounts to a “deliberate malfunction”: the gun has all the full-auto parts except the auto-sear, he knew that putting the selector switch in the third (!!!) position caused it to “double” (then jam), and instead of fixing the “problem” he would explain it to people he loaned the gun to. It’s that final bit that actually got him in trouble: the other issues could be explained away in court as an excusable “malfunction”, but he was “transferring” a gun known (intended?) to “double” (technically a machinegun) to other people without filing a Form 4.
He knew what he had, and failed to hide behind the “malfunction” claim; instead of fixing it, he reveled in it. Being stupid in court didn’t help.
That said ...
Yes, the BATFE apparently behaved reprehensibly as well. Nonetheless, he was willfully & criminally stupid. Both sides did wrong, but even if the BATFE behaved perfectly he’d still be convicted.
The way this case has been presented by pro-gun folks (and I’m one of them) is that this guy was railroaded by the gov’t, that any one of us with a semi-auto rifle or pistol could wind up in the same predicament due to a simple malfunction.
The M16 requires a whole mess of different fire control parts than an AR. The hammer, safety selector, disconnector, trigger housing and bolt carrier are all different.
I would think that anyone familiar with the AR would know the difference between the parts and make a point of replacing anything that was not legal.
I would think that anyone familiar with the AR would know the difference between the parts and make a point of replacing anything that was not legal.
Ya see, that's the problem. Pro-gun folks closer to the case observe that this guy DID have the questionable parts installed, and he made a point of NOT replacing anything that "malfunctioned" or was "not legal". It would double when on the third (!) selector position, acting as a willful malfunction. He knew it did this, and instead of fixing it would tell people about it.
Not everyone is an upstanding citizen. There's a lot indicating this guy wasn't. Sure, the BATFE did their part to screw him over, but he didn't need any help.
We're not talking a simple malfunction here. We're talking someone deliberately installed parts that would "fail" in a way that some consider "cool".
Finally: we're not talking about _possession_ of an illegal MG, he was convicted for _transfer_ thereof. Lesson: don't loan out guns that are known to double.
If the government withheld evidence from a jury which might have caused it to acquit, it cheated. It doesn't matter whether the guy deserved to be convicted or not. There's no reason to believe that a government that cheats against bad people won't cheat just as badly--if not worse--against good ones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.