BATFE still out of control

[Guest tngunman]

A post from Ar15.com from the accused:

The whole mess of the case is I have never had an unregistered one (machine gun). That's what the search nearly 5 months ago was supposed to turn up for them. Nothing found in any areas I control and naturally there are no witnesses to say I have ever fired an unregistered one. Whole case seams to hinge on making the claim that because the gun is owned by me and that I am responsible for what happens to it when it is loaned out.

This particular gun is one of the oldest in my inventory and has had many parts replaced (with DPMS factory parts in most cases) due to wear out. It has been out to nearly a half dozen folks in the past 22 years. I haven't taken it to the range since I changed the barrel out on it in that time.

The kid they took it from had it for the past 5 months or so dropping it off at my house for a few days before picking it up again as they state in the complaint. Of course they leave that point out of it to make it look like he just picked it up for the first time. I even gave him half a case of ammo the last time and 300 or so rounds prior to that to plink with. Shame on me for wanting others to enjoy AR-15's as much as I do I guess.

The whole it is an sample gun that others get until they buy an AR from me is a crock. I don't sell guns, or even parts. Only sold around 7 personal guns in the past 10-12 years or so. I will however help others assemble the guns after they get there receiver from the FFL dealer. Now, apparently if you stay in compliance with federal law making sure folks get their own gun and then help them assemble the AR parts you are manufacturing and are engaged in unauthorized use of another’s FFL. Nothing but wishful thinking on f-troops part though as the definitions are already set in stone and are completely different from what this one agent tries to make it.

He claims that this rifle was out of his control for 5 months.

Edited July 6, 2008 by tngunman

[Marswolf]

And he didn't know it had a three position selector switch? Sorry, there are too many coincidences and excuses. I just don't believe him.

[Mark@Sea]

The problem here isn't the accuseds' credibility, it is BATFE's credibility. When you have a well-deserved reputation for bs charges, paid witnesses, perjury, and complete disregard of law, constitutional rights, and legal ethics, it doesn't do wonders for public opinion.

[Marswolf]

In all due respect, Mark, in this case I think the accused does lack credibility. You are military. You haven't ever seen a military guy who would act exactly this way? I have a zillion times. They never expect to be caught. The BATFE does have some bad eggs, but the guys I know are pretty straight-forward.

This one is too far out to be set up. I'd have voted to convict.

Just looking at witness statements, it looks like BATFE had a solid case. Olofson's defense was basically, "who me?"

[Mark@Sea]

Mars, I don't know the AR system well enough to know what changes have to be made to make it select fire. I do know that drop-in parts ain't gonna do it for a civvy lower, unless you have one of those very obvious drop in sears - which wasn't in the gun. If he did modify it with the intent to make it select fire, then he did a very poor job of it, since it wouldn't go auto with hard-primered ammo, and with soft-primered ammo it would shoot what, 2 or 3 then jam so hard it had to be dissassembled. I note DPMS recalled the rifles some years back for just this sort of problem. I note that with some ammo (poorly seated, soft primers) I've had box-stock M1A's fire doubles. That doesn't make the M1A a machine gun, and it certainly shouldn't make me a felon. At most it makes me dumb for buying cheap reloads.

Maybe the guy has some culpability here, maybe not. There is enough doubt that I would vote to acquit. And that doubt is what the system is all about, isn't it?

[KahrMan]

Mars, not sure if you have seen this thread over at ar15.com, but it is 88 pages of the history of the case. Mr Olofson post a lot of the documents from the trial and tells his story. His screen name is Bladerunner. There is a lot of info there and it really sounds like he is getting railroaded. The batfe committed perjury int he case to keep certain batfe documents out of the trial that would have helped his case. It is a lot of reading but it is worth it.

He had public defenders for most of the time and they didn't do a good job. GOA is now footing the bill for his appeals. They have gotten one of the big law firms who worked on the heller case to represent him. Here is the link:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483&page=1

[Marswolf]

Mark, I understand what you are saying, but a selector doesn't go into burst (or auto) mode without some work, or more likely the additional cut-outs of an auto selector. Additional evidence was the bolt. And there doesn't seem to be a question that he knew the rifle would go into burst mode, even though it might jam. Obviously, it lacked the additional parts (easily made) to convert to full auto. I don't know it it was incompetence on his part (which I suspect) or something else, but the gun was modified to make it possible to fire in a burst mode. If he didn't do it, he should have caled ATF and reported it. He clearly knew it would happen. That was part of the incriminating evidence.

I'm sitting here looking at a burst capable selector by my keyboard. It's been here for weeks because I had a question to answer about it. But I don't have a sear and the selector isn't in my AR. And my AR is capable of easily being converted without additional machining to the lower receiver.

The problem here doesn't seem to be about the actual facts of this case but a hatred of the BATFE. People seem willing to believe anything about them. Specifically excluding you, I see people all over the world who "feel" that the government is doing terrible things. Lots of folks here "felt" that way about Colombian SF groups (maybe including some American help...) until those forces rescued the hostages the other day. Of course, that was an obvious anomaly to those who hate the Colombian and/or American government. Pardon me if I use a particularly relevant comment related to my experience that I know a great deal about. [GO GUYS! ]

I disagree with virtually all handgun "control" laws. But the laws are the laws. They need to be changed. We need to elect people who will change them. But Olofson looks guilty of stupidity in the first degree to me. I don't believe his ridiculous spin on the story for a minute.

I was outraged, at first. But fact caught up with the spin. Olofson is not guilty of betrayal of his country, but he is giulty of violating the statutes. And to my mind, he is mostly guilty of arrogance and stupidity. That's what he is paying the price for.

[Marswolf]

Mars, not sure if you have seen this thread over at ar15.com, but it is 88 pages of the history of the case. Mr Olofson post a lot of the documents from the trial and tells his story. His screen name is Bladerunner. There is a lot of info there and it really sounds like he is getting railroaded. The batfe committed perjury int he case to keep certain batfe documents out of the trial that would have helped his case. It is a lot of reading but it is worth it.

He had public defenders for most of the time and they didn't do a good job. GOA is now footing the bill for his appeals. They have gotten one of the big law firms who worked on the heller case to represent him. Here is the link:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483&page=1

I'm sorry KahrMan, but the BATFE did not commit "perjury" as far as I can determine. Certain evidence, as I understand it was suppressed by the judge because it was irrelevant. Other evidence was simply not brought up. My thought is that it was to prevent the introduction of red herrings and it wasn't needed. I agree with the judge, BTW. All prosecution evidence actually seems to have been disclosed during what is legally termed "discovery" as far as I can find. Can you give me a specific instance? We have a local case where the defendant fired his defense nine times. The defendant in this case could have done the same - if they were incompetent.

This matter is a lot of emotion and not much logical examination in my view.

I hate that GOA is wasting it's (your) money again. But I have noticed they are sending me letters again after my quitting the group some years ago because of the racist connections of Executive Director Larry Pratt. I have no interest in supporting this group. Fool me once....

But the bottom line is that I think Olofson knew the condition of the rifle and was properly convicted.

BTW, don't believe all that a defendant tells you.

[KahrMan]

Mars, I understand you can't believe everything a defendant tells you.

Here are couple of things I have a problem with.

You keep saying the Olofson clearly new the gun would fire in burst mode. How do you know. The only person saying this is the man that was actually was arrested with the rifle. This man has been caught in several lies and he was paid for his testimony. Shouldn't the threat of going to jail for being in possession of a "machine gun" be enough to compel him to testify? Obviously not because the batfe has to pay him for his testimony. The batfe itself concluded that the rifle was not a machine gun but a malfunctioning semi-auto. That wasn't good enough so they changed to soft primer ammo and kept testing it till it malfunctioned again. We do not know what mods you claim were made to the gun because the batfe would not let the defense inspect the gun. Think about this, you are trial and you are not allowed to examine the evidence against you. The defense was not allowed to have one of their experts examine the weapon and testify. The reason is the prosecution and batfe said it was irrelevant if the gun was modified or if it was simply a malfunction. That didn't matter. The only thing that mattered was if they could make it fire more than one round with the pull of a trigger. Lets say that you are out shooting skeet with your over under. You pull the trigger and both barrels fire because of a malfunction. You are now looking at federal jail time for possesing a machinegun. There is now legal precedent for that scenario.

I forget which case but a higher court in a different jurisdiction ruled that a malfunctioning gun does NOT a machine gun make. The judge wouldn't allow the defense to even bring this up to the jury.

Put your self in Mr Olofson shoes. He is told that it does not matter if the gun was modified or not. It does not matter if the gun malfunctioned. It does not matter that the batfe concluded that it was not a machine gun. The only thing that matters is they were able to make the gun fire more than one round with pull of the trigger. Remeber the batfe has no set testing procedures to follow. They can tinker with your gun as much as they want to get it to malfunction. And once it malfunctions you are guilty of having a machine gun.

I am not a lawyer but I know right from wrong and this just seems wrong.

[KahrMan]

As to the perjury...The defense requested a batfe document. They testifies that it contained privileged tax info and therefore didn't have to turn it over. After the verdict the defense was able to show that the batfe lied and the document did not contain the privileged info they claimed. That is perjury. The judge ruled that the form did not matter. The defense should have been allowed to present the info and let the jury decide if it is relevant. It does not matter if the judge ruled the document irrelevant, the batfe still lied to the judge to keep it out of court. That is perjury.

[Marswolf]

KahrMan, the judge ruling that something is inadmissible does not mean the prosecution perjured itself.. It means the judge ruled on the legal submittance of admissible evidence. That's one of the things a judge does. That you don't think that was proper, isn't really a consideration. The judge goes by the law. If he erred, the matter will be brought back for another trial where Olofson will again be convicted.

IMHO there was a lot more than sufficient evidence to convict Olofson of possession of an illegal weapon.

[Guest tngunman]

I know exactly how an M16 works. "Filing the bolt" will not make it fire full auto. I don't care how much you file it. The bolt has one job and that is to lock into the chamber to keep the rear of the cartridge from blowing apart.

Maybe he meant the carrier? Nope- filing on the carrier won't affect function either. The only differeence between semi and full auto carriers is the full auto has more metal, not less, so filing is pointless here too. The auto carrier works in conjunction with the auto sear and the hammer to produce reliable full auto fire.

A 3 position selector by itself will do nothing. It works in conjunction with the trigger and the disconnector. All 3 in a rifle together may slamfire full auto but it will jam. In order to get reliable firing you need the other 3 parts-carrier, hammer, auto sear.

This guy was convicted on the testimony of a paid rat! Nothing else! The paid rat had possesion of the rifle for months before he got busted but somehow profited from the incident and never did any time for firing a machine gun at a range full of cops.

He was paid an undisclosed sum for his testimony.

[Guest tngunman]

Also note in the link to AR15.com, the ATF started seizure proceedings on Aug 2, 2006 but it was not found to be an auto until Nov 6, 2006.

Someone please help me understand how that works.

I also note that they found no other AR15 type weapons in his possession.

Edited July 7, 2008 by tngunman

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

The emperor wears no clothes............and a filed bolt, either by Olofson or the ATF, doesn't mean a damn thing. You can add any fire selector you want. It doesn't matter. It's the same reason I can buy all sorts of "selective fire" receivers in terms of markings and safety movement, but that's radically different than actually having a selective fire rifle.

Screw the Hughes Amendment, and screw the ATF.

[Guest crytes]

I am under the simple opion that laws belong in the black and white. Those that make into the grey are dangerous to us all and need to be reomoved. My .45 if I ride the trigger can alow me pop off a very quick double tap which could be misaken for aurofire this seems to put me as well as anyone whith similer expeirience at risk. Any time prosecution states evidence doesn't matter should make you leary.

[Marswolf]

I don't know what all was done to the rifle to allow it to fire in an auto mode, let alone a burst mode. There is more to the story, but apparently this rifle would multi-fire and only with the selector in one position that normally wouldn't even exist on an AR.

It seems to me that this rifle wasn't broken but instead modified. The question is by whom.

I have a hard time defending an agency enforcing a law that shouldn't exist, but the law does exist and to me this appears to be a purposely modified firearm.

I think a better defense would have been for Dave Olofson to have said the gun came to him that way but he tried it and never had a multi-fire with it. That would be plausible given that it required rounds with soft primers. Unfortunately, the guy who had the multi-fire at the range said that Olofson had told him beforehand that would happen. Maybe he's lying but his story makes sense and the gun itself was illegal regardless of the initial testing.

We'll see what happens on appeal.

[KahrMan]

Mars, not trying to be argumentative but I don't understand this. When the judge ruled the document was inadmissable, he had not seen the document. He took the word of the batfe on what was in the document. The batfe lied to the judge about the contents of the document. How is this not perjury?

[Smith]

I don't know what all was done to the rifle to allow it to fire in an auto mode, let alone a burst mode. There is more to the story, but apparently this rifle would multi-fire and only with the selector in one position that normally wouldn't even exist on an AR.

It seems to me that this rifle wasn't broken but instead modified. The question is by whom.

I have a hard time defending an agency enforcing a law that shouldn't exist, but the law does exist and to me this appears to be a purposely modified firearm.

I think a better defense would have been for Dave Olofson to have said the gun came to him that way but he tried it and never had a multi-fire with it. That would be plausible given that it required rounds with soft primers. Unfortunately, the guy who had the multi-fire at the range said that Olofson had told him beforehand that would happen. Maybe he's lying but his story makes sense and the gun itself was illegal regardless of the initial testing.

We'll see what happens on appeal.

I partially agree with Mars. It was modified and he knew about it. At best he was careless at worst he was what was charged. Is it worth the sentence? Maybe maybe not, but he created the debacle and now will pay for the mess.

[Marswolf]

Mars, not trying to be argumentative but I don't understand this. When the judge ruled the document was inadmissable, he had not seen the document. He took the word of the batfe on what was in the document. The batfe lied to the judge about the contents of the document. How is this not perjury?

I don't really know what happened at the rulings phase. But I think the judge ruled that the document was irrelevant. to the evidence in the case and thus inadmissible. As I understand it, it dealt with possible misfiring of the rifle, and would have been relevant if the rifle had not been modified from its original condition. The defense certainly had an opportunity to argue their view of the document. In such matters, it is common for each side to put their own spin of the meaning of potential evidence. I doubt the prosecution just flat out lied to the judge. And I doubt the defense was able to show relevance.

This matter has produced a lot of emotion, but from what I have read, it looks to me like it was really pretty much open and shut. The side antics dealing with searches and all is common in a lot of cases. It's unpleasant, but the system is adversarial. The Appeals Court isn't going to care if the investigators upset the kids. They are going to look at whether evidence supportive to the defenses claims was unfairly suppressed. But the crux of the matter is that a modified rifle was capable of illegally firing and the owner apparently knew that.

I think we have a law that a lot of us don't like. But until we can get Congress to change the law, we are subject to penalties if we ignore it.

[KahrMan]

I don't really know what happened at the rulings phase. But I think the judge ruled that the document was irrelevant. to the evidence in the case and thus inadmissible. As I understand it, it dealt with possible misfiring of the rifle, and would have been relevant if the rifle had not been modified from its original condition. The defense certainly had an opportunity to argue their view of the document. In such matters, it is common for each side to put their own spin of the meaning of potential evidence. I doubt the prosecution just flat out lied to the judge. And I doubt the defense was able to show relevance.

This matter has produced a lot of emotion, but from what I have read, it looks to me like it was really pretty much open and shut. The side antics dealing with searches and all is common in a lot of cases. It's unpleasant, but the system is adversarial. The Appeals Court isn't going to care if the investigators upset the kids. They are going to look at whether evidence supportive to the defenses claims was unfairly suppressed. But the crux of the matter is that a modified rifle was capable of illegally firing and the owner apparently knew that.

I think we have a law that a lot of us don't like. But until we can get Congress to change the law, we are subject to penalties if we ignore it.

That sounds pretty reasonable. It is hard to really know what went on when you only have the convicted defendants side of the story. I hope more info comes out during the appeal processes. This is an interesting case.

[roninnashville]

OK.....I have one for you. I have seen AR's on a M4 platform go auto. It was related to one extra drop of oil placed specifically on the bolt & carrier and a gentle finger pull. No mods to this rifle or others that this took place on. This information first came out of South Carolina. Does anyone else have information about this? I own several AR's and this made me uncomfortable. (no M4 platforms)

[Marswolf]

Sounds like a defective rifle, either in design or manufacture. Do you know who made the receiver?

[molonlabetn]

It may be possible for someone unfamiliar with shooting a semi-auto rifle to inadvertently 'bump-fire' a few rounds.

[Marswolf]

It may be possible for someone unfamiliar with shooting a semi-auto rifle to inadvertently 'bump-fire' a few rounds.

That's possible, but normally takes a fair amount of practice. I had one of those Hellfire spring thingies at one time but never could perfect the technique.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

No one here has had an SKS slamfire because someone did a poor de-cosmo job? Heck, even old CMP guns will do it. That's the thing that frightens me about this decision. Without the ATF specifically demonstrating that this rifle was a machine gun, they convinced an ignorant jury that he had transfered one.

As I understand it (or don't), Olofson was convicted of unlawfully transferring a machine gun. Not manufacture or even intent to manufacture.