Man gets 30 months for broken rifle

[CaptainChewbacca]

Yes, its WorldNetDaily

Owner of broken rifle surrenders for 30-month sentence
'The conviction of David Olofson is a gross miscarriage of justice'

Posted: July 02, 2008
11:30 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A Wisconsin man today surrendered to federal authorities to begin serving a 30-month prison term for having a broken rifle, prompting the Gun Owners of America to issue a warning about the owner's liability should any semi-automatic weapon ever misfire.

"A gun that malfunctions is not a machine gun," Larry Pratt, executive director of GOA, said. "What the [federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] has done in the [David] 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."

Officials with Gun Owners of America told WND they met with Olofson today before he surrendered to federal authorities for his prison term. U.S. District Judge Charles Clevert had imposed the sentence after the gun in question let loose three shots at a firing range.

"It didn't matter the rifle in question had not been intentionally modified for select fire, or that it did not have an M16 bolt carrier … that it did not show any signs of machining or drilling, or that that model had even been recalled a few years back," said a commentary in Guns Magazine on the case against Olofson, of Berlin, Wis.

"It didn't matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer type. It didn't even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not important to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted today," the magazine said. "What mattered was the government's position that none of the above was relevant because '[t]here's no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it's a machine gun.'

"No matter what the cause."

"David Olofson is a victim of BATFE abuse," Pratt said. "He has been railroaded by an agency that is out-of-control."

An appeal is being assembled by a legal team at the William J. Olson, P.C., law firm, supplemented by attorney Bob Sanders, whose career stretches from being assistant director of criminal investigations at BATFE to many years in private trial law, officials said.

Constitutional expert Herb Titus also is counsel to the Olson law firm.

WND reported earlier when Olofson, a drill instructor in the National Guard, was convicted in a federal court for illegally transferring a machine gun.

The verdict came in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

An expert witness said then the decision was filled with problems.

"If your semiautomatic rifle breaks or malfunctions you are now subject to prosecution. That is now a sad FACT," wrote Len Savage, a weaponry expert who runs Historic Arms LLC.

"To those in the sporting culture who have derided 'black guns' and so-called 'assault weapons'; Your double barreled shotgun is now next up to be seized and you could possibly be prosecuted if the ATF can get it to 'fire more than once,'" he wrote in a blog run by Red's Trading Post.

"Hey, but don't worry," Savage said. "The people testing it have no procedures in writing and the testing will be in secret."

He said during an interview with Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership that Olofson had been instructing a man in the use of guns, and the student asked to borrow a rifle for some shooting practice.

"Mr. Olofson was nice enough to accommodate him," Savage said. So the student, Robert Kiernicki, went to a range and fired about 120 rounds. "He went to put in another magazine and the rifle shot three times, then jammed."

He said the rifle, which was subject to a manufacturer's recall because of mechanical problems at one point, malfunctioned because of the way it was made.

Savage said once the government confiscated the gun, things got worse.

"They examined and test fired the rifle; then declared it to be 'just a rifle,'" Savage said. "You would think it would all be resolved at this point, this was merely the beginning."

He said the Special Agent in Charge, Jody Keeku, asked for a re-test and specified that the tests use "soft primered commercial ammunition."

"FTB has no standardized testing procedures, in fact it has no written procedures at all for testing firearms," Savage said. "They had no standard to stick to, and gleefully tried again. The results this time...'a machinegun.' ATF with a self-admitted 50 percent error rate pursued an indictment and Mr. Olofson was charged with 'Unlawful transfer of a machinegun.'. Not possession, not even Robert Kiernicki was charged with possession (who actually possessed the rifle), though the ATF paid Mr. Kiernicki 'an undisclosed amount of money' to testify against Mr. Olofson at trial," Savage said.

Now, this is the first I've heard of this. I was wondering if any of our resident gun owners (which I'm not) had heard about this or had a comment on it. It really seems they went out of their way to charge this guy and convict him.

[Glocksman]

Yeah, it's been discussed heavily on a lot of gun boards and the consensus is that the ATF's railroading the guy but he brought a lot of it on himself by being stupid.

This is a pretty good look at the case.

In honor of this, I have upgraded to a life membership in the NRA (well, and because they were offering it for half price at the Annual Meeting). I have blogged little about the Olofson case. I knew my views on this were going to piss a lot of people off, because while I think it represents the ATF at its worst, it also represents our side at its worst as well. Everyone needs to read the entire thread on AR-15.com. Olofson is Bladerunner2347. Some comments:

* When served with a federal search warrant, the smart thing to do is shut up and get a good lawyer. Posting about your case for the world to see is not a wise idea when the federales come knocking down your door.
* It’s rarely a winning strategy to represent yourself, and using a disbarred lawyer to help you doesn’t sound like one either. This is probably a big reason why NRA didn’t get involved. Most competent attorneys who practice gun law are able to get that kind of help, but NRA has to be asked.
* Ignoring advice of real lawyers who say a legal argument that challenges jurisdiction of the federal argument to charge you won’t do anything except piss off the judge strikes me as a bad idea as well.
* The kid he lent the AR to made a sworn statement that Olafson had told him not to move the selector into the unmarked burst mode setting because it was missing “some type of thing.” That type of thing would likely be a drop in auto sear.
* Why would you lend an AR that has been partially converted to someone, when you can probably bet they are going to actually try pushing the selector past fire?
* Olofson’s AR contained numerous M16 parts. As far as I know, some manufacturers in the 70s and 80s used some M16 parts in their AR-15s, like bolt carriers and hammers, until the ATF issued a ruling that the practice be stopped. Olofson’s AR had an M16 trigger, disconnector, selector, and hammer. As far as I know, there weren’t any manufacturers that used this many M16 parts in their ARs. The agent who examined the parts, correctly in my view, stated that this did not constitute a machine gun, but ATF has long held M16 parts in an AR to be a no no.
* Implying that the ATF broke into your house and planted evidence is not going to work with a jury unless you have other evidence to back this up. Admitting you disposed of evidence doesn’t seem like a good idea either, especially when the evidence in question was the one part in question that would make the AR a fully working machine gun.

This isn’t to say the ATF have been angels in this case. Most of the criticisms I’ve seen leveled at ATF have been on the money. ATF pretty clearly deserves to be raked over the coals for:

* Not having any standardized testing procedures for determining if a firearm is a machine gun.
* Not having any standard for determining if the requesite parts in possession constitute “readily convertible”
* Not allowing the defense access to evidence against them so that it may be examined by their own experts.
* The ruling that any M16 parts constitute a machine gun is bogus, and deserves to be rebuked in court. ATF should have the burden to prove that the arm, or combination of parts in question, is a functioning machine gun, or can be readily made into a functioning machine gun. Basically, if they didn’t find the auto-sear, they shouldn’t have a case.

If you’re going to challenge the ATF on these matters, you need to have competent legal counsel that’s experienced in firearms laws. It is not the time to play legal expert. If you lose your case, you’re not just hurting yourself, you’re hurting every gun owner out there, because now ATF has winning precedent they can use to screw everybody else.

I don’t blame NRA for not getting involved in this case, because a) they were never asked, and b) the case is a bloody mess, with a poor defendant and poor circumstances. The case was very likely from the get go to result in a loss that would actually harm gun owners, rather than help them. That’s why I get pissy when guys like this do stupid shit that gets them in trouble and then pile more stupid shit on top of that when they get caught and go to trial. If we’re going to challenge them in court, we have to have our A game on, and I don’t see any evidence that this was the case here.

That said, I believe Americans have a right to own an M16, and I don’t think the public safety is enhanced one iota by putting Mr. Olofson in prison. But ATF went ahead with this, and it won. Now some are turning it into one more reason to bash the NRA. Sorry, but you don’t get to douse yourself with gasoline, light yourself on fire, and then run around bitching that no one is helping you put out the fire. I call bullshit on that one. We have to choose our battles carefully, and this isn’t a case I’d want to use to challenge ATF.

[Death from the Sea]

This is total bullshit. I can't tell you how many times I have been at the range and someone has had a weapon malfunction that resulted in two or three rounds popping off on accident. Usually a pistol.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I agree, DS, but from what Glocksman posted it looks like this guy was a dumbass who had either heavily modified his gun to fire full auto, or had knowingly allowed his gun to malfunction as a full auto. Not quite as innocent as a single accidental discharge.

The whole thing just seems... weird.

[Glocksman]

I agree, DS, but from what Glocksman posted it looks like this guy was a dumbass who had either heavily modified his gun to fire full auto, or had knowingly allowed his gun to malfunction as a full auto. Not quite as innocent as a single accidental discharge

I don't think it was an accident:

Olofson’s AR had an M16 trigger, disconnector, selector, and hammer.

Unless the rifle was shipped from the manufacturer (IIRC, that's his defense) with those M16 fire control group parts, he had to install them himself.

There is no benefit to installing an M16 FCG parts set into any AR other than it lets you use a 'drop in auto sear' to convert the gun to full auto.
Also, this guy was apparently a longtime member of the AR15.com forums, and there are numerous pieces there about not using M16 parts in your AR.


M16 versus AR15 parts
Drop In Auto Sear explained.

That said, the ATF's actions in not allowing the defense to have access to the evidence and the lack of standards as to what constitutes 'readily convertible' to a machine gun are indefensible.

IMHO, he got railroaded but he filled up the coal bunker on the locomotive.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That said, the ATF's actions in not allowing the defense to have access to the evidence and the lack of standards as to what constitutes 'readily convertible' to a machine gun are indefensible.

It is also, last I checked, unconstitutional. But then again, this is what happens when you represent yourself. At any time this idiot could have gotten a competent legal aid attorney who would have spotted that little issue coming a mile away

[Darth Wong]

Why does anyone quote WND? They make FOXNews actually look fair and balanced.

[Glocksman]

Why does anyone quote WND? They make FOXNews actually look fair and balanced.

Indeed.
That's what motivated me to look beyond the posted OP.
I'd been aware of the case for a while but I didn't really follow it because I'd gathered the impression the guy in question was begging for a bust.

Looking into it after Chewie's post convinced me that my initial impression was correct.
Speaking as a Federal Firearms License 03 (curio and relic) holder, I'll state that it's the responsibility of the gun owner to make sure any modifications made to their guns are legal.

Gun laws can be convoluted in that a modification to one SKS (for example installing an aftermarket folding stock or high capacity magazine) is perfectly legal, but the same modification to another one is illegal simply due to the date of production and/or country of origin.

Gun law is definitely not an area where ignorance is a defense.

[Death from the Sea]

Ok, if he modified his rifle then this makes alot more sense and he is a dumbshit. Who reported him to the ATF I wonder?

[Covenant]

Why does anyone need an M16 anyway? I can understand wanting a rifle for hunting game, a pistol for target shooting, or a shotgun for home defense. But what do you really need some kind of machine weapon for? On what basis do so many people make the claim that you should be allowed to own them?

[gtg947h]

I'll flip that around, and ask "why should they not be able to?". People make a huge deal out of "OMG, a machine gun!!!!" but the effectiveness of full-auto is vastly overrated. The real world isn't James Bond, where you can spray-n-pray from the hip and mow down a whole line of badguys at thirty yards.

A lot of people want machine guns simply so they can go out to the range and turn money into a whole lot of noise.

Also, only about two (yes, 2) crimes have been committed with legally-owned automatic weapons in the past few decades. One of those was a police officer gunning down a drug dealer.

More on the legal issues surrounding this later today or tomorrow; I have a boat to do work on right now...

[Darth Wong]

I'll flip that around, and ask "why should they not be able to?". People make a huge deal out of "OMG, a machine gun!!!!" but the effectiveness of full-auto is vastly overrated. The real world isn't James Bond, where you can spray-n-pray from the hip and mow down a whole line of badguys at thirty yards.

Maybe you should go to the relatives of those 17 people gunned down accidentally by a single burst by a French soldier and explain how that kind of burst really isn't as dangerous as people think it is. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear about how your expert opinion can overrule reality.

[Beowulf]

I'll flip that around, and ask "why should they not be able to?". People make a huge deal out of "OMG, a machine gun!!!!" but the effectiveness of full-auto is vastly overrated. The real world isn't James Bond, where you can spray-n-pray from the hip and mow down a whole line of badguys at thirty yards.

Maybe you should go to the relatives of those 17 people gunned down accidentally by a single burst by a French soldier and explain how that kind of burst really isn't as dangerous as people think it is. I'm sure they'd be fascinated to hear about how your expert opinion can overrule reality.

Well, if he'd been following the first rule of gun handling, nothing of the sort would have happened (1st rule: treat every gun as if it is loaded). Of course, none of those people were killed, either. So you don't have to ask the relatives, just the people that were shot.

[Coyote]

Ok, if he modified his rifle then this makes alot more sense and he is a dumbshit. Who reported him to the ATF I wonder?

Wasn't it the gun range owner? If so, I wouldn't blame him, for liability purposes he can't tolerate a dude with a possibly illegally-modified weapon practicing right in front of him, on his land.


As for machine guns, I actually don't mind the restriction. While people who know weapons understand that full-auto is pretty much useless, it is the uneducated wanna-be macho types who don't really understand what they're doing who want full-auto. And those are the types of yay-hoos who'll go out and do something stupid that gets a law passed that ruins my day.

People who truly want a full-auto can go out and get one, proved they go through a LOT of legal stuff first. The casual moron won't do it.

[Vendetta]

Well, if he'd been following the first rule of gun handling, nothing of the sort would have happened (1st rule: treat every gun as if it is loaded). Of course, none of those people were killed, either. So you don't have to ask the relatives, just the people that were shot.

And if he'd had a semiautomatic weapon, the tragic mistake that still happened because humans aren't infallibly going to follow best safety practise at all times would have been far less serious.

And someone who isn't a trained soldier is more likely to make such a mistake.

[Kanastrous]

Maybe you should go to the relatives of those 17 people gunned down accidentally by a single burst by a French soldier

Link?

I had no idea that a French soldier could be so lethal. At least, on purpose.

[JLTucker]

You can read the article in this thread.

[Glocksman]

I don't really mind the legal restrictions as far as legal qualifications to purchase, as they serve to weed out those who probably shouldn't have one.
What I *do* mind is the 1986 ban on new weapons that has driven the prices of existing ones through the stratosphere ($11,000 for a 21 year old M16).

As others have mentioned, from 1934 to 1985 there were only one or two crimes period committed by the legal civilian owners of full autos, and one of the criminals was a police officer who was moonlighting for the Mob.

So why the ban?
If I legally qualify and can get my local police chief to sign the application, why shouldn't I be able to spend $1,000+$200 tax for a brand new M16 versus not being able to afford $11 grand for a 21 year old used one?

[Andrew_Fireborn]

Maybe you should go to the relatives of those 17 people gunned down accidentally by a single burst by a French soldier

Link?

I had no idea that a French soldier could be so lethal. At least, on purpose.

Still on the front page, an yes, so far it seems to be unintentional.

The story.

[Beowulf]

Well, if he'd been following the first rule of gun handling, nothing of the sort would have happened (1st rule: treat every gun as if it is loaded). Of course, none of those people were killed, either. So you don't have to ask the relatives, just the people that were shot.

And if he'd had a semiautomatic weapon, the tragic mistake that still happened because humans aren't infallibly going to follow best safety practise at all times would have been far less serious.

And someone who isn't a trained soldier is more likely to make such a mistake.

He'd just be putting out at a slower rate. It'd still be possible that most of his shots would end up in the crowd before he realized it.

Someone who isn't a trained soldier wouldn't be trying the sort of stunt unless it was a movie production, in which case there'd be no live rounds in the area at all.

A number of states require a safety course before you buy a gun. One of the things that is taught are the rules of gun safety. In terms of safety rules, it's up there with "No dangling things while using a power tool".

You have to be a fairly serious gun owner to even be able to afford the cost of ammo. There are few more effective ways to turn money into smoke than a machinegun.

[gtg947h]

Look, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with "unrestricted full auto for all!"; I'm just throwing that out as a discussion point. Devil's advocate, if you will. For the record, I think along the lines of Mr. Glocksman (given the current political situation), though I believe that the "chief law-enforcement officer" shouldn't be able to refuse a signature just because he doesn't like your shoes or something.

Also, most police and military aren't highly-trained "super-experts"; witness the DEA guy that shot himself in the foot in front of a class of kids, immediately after talking about how he was the only one "professional enough" to be handling a gun Police departments here in Georgia, for example, only require their officers to qualify twice per year (20-40 rounds or so each time), and a lot of those officers only shoot the bare minimum required to pass. I don't claim to be an expert by stretch of the imagination, either; but having a badge or being in the military doesn't automatically make you any more qualified or safe. What matters much more is your attitude.

And re: the French incident... every round should have been verified as a blank before the exercise started; and blanks or not, there's no reason at all to be firing toward the crowd. They violated the first two commandments of firearms handling. Many heads will be rolling soon enough...

[Edward Yee]

Why does anyone need an M16 anyway? I can understand wanting a rifle for hunting game, a pistol for target shooting, or a shotgun for home defense. But what do you really need some kind of machine weapon for? On what basis do so many people make the claim that you should be allowed to own them?

Just to check, by "rifle" you allow for semiauto?

[Kanastrous]

Maybe you should go to the relatives of those 17 people gunned down accidentally by a single burst by a French soldier

Link?

I had no idea that a French soldier could be so lethal. At least, on purpose.

Still on the front page, an yes, so far it seems to be unintentional.

The story.

Wow.

Lucky for him the FAMAS doesn't use a barrel plug for blank-firing. The rifle would have exploded in his face.

[Glocksman]

At the risk of sounding cold, it would have been better for the wounded civilians if it had blown up in his face.

[Kanastrous]

I don't think the wounded civilians would accuse you of coldness, at all.