It was accurate, just not very reliable. {Someone has done some "customizing" on this one}
Posted on 01/17/2008 10:45:33 AM PST by CrappieLuck
A drill instructor in the National Guard has been convicted in a Wisconsin federal court of illegally transferring a machine gun after a rifle he loaned to a student malfunctioned, setting off three shots before jamming.
The verdict of guilty on one count in the case against David Olofson was confirmed yesterday by the clerk's office in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
That means now that anyone whose weapon malfunctions is subject to charges of having or handling a banned gun, according to an expert witness who reports that the particular problem is a well-known malfunction and was even the subject of a recall from the manufacturer.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Dude...read the initial report.... ATF’s own lab said NOT a machine gun.
Where is that in the first lab report? It isn't there. It took subsequent "testing" to get it to fire in "full-auto", which nin reality was a series of slam-fires.
*ping*
The first report was recognized as the result of incomplete, and thus faulty testing. The student was told it would go auto when the fire control switch was placed in the unmarked, third position, and the gun consistently fired auto for him. That's what caused the initial attention to the gun.
That's correct. You should buy a new spring, install it and toss the old one.
You never had a case.
That's fine. From what you said though, he bought parts for 4 guns and assembled and sold them. He sold one to the ATF and it was found to fire full auto.
"The government witness - a tech in the ATF lab, got demolished by cross examination as to the extent of the work they did on the gun to make it fire full auto."
What was the extent of "work done"? Did the ATF turn it into a machine gun? If so, why weren't they prosecuted for the deliberate tampering with evidence?
The BATF is government gone wild ( thank God they keep their shirts on ) but they do anything they want and have.
Here is a soldier who has been targeted and yes he has for about as unjust a charge that anybody could imagine and instead of wondering how this could be possible the people here are trading ideas on how to modify? That is the very reason little problems like this flourish and a member of our military, his life is probably ruined.
Thank you for the post, you are 100% correct
It wouldn't be any deal at all. Anyone could own an M-16, and BATFE would be BAT and still in treasury, and still busting moonshiners and cigarette runners for not paying the sin tax on booze and cigs.
That's common anywhere. What matters is the facts of the case here, which does not provide evidence of institutionalized corruption.
What the lab did or did not come up with means nothing under federal gun laws.
My father was a 26 year veteran of the Air Force and I did accompany him to the range on base and more than once I was handed a m-16 by the person in charge of the range and allowed to fire that weapon at a target. That was proper under military rules and allowed! That was 30 years ago and I will admit my father was a half bird at the time. That really did happen. The BATF can take their reports and wipe a part of their anatomy with that same paperwork!!
*****
It might have been one I had as a kid. That's the reason I got rid of it. I can't remember the model number, it was tube fed and had those weird slots on the left side of the receiver directly behind the chamber.
I'll be damned. Big ol' heavy thing - as .22s go - right? The bolt handle could be pressed inward to serve as a bolt lock while cleaning? The left side slots are opposite the ejection port?
I had one that went full-auto as well. Never could figure out the problem, but I found the problem was worse if I loosened the stock. Eventually I gave it to my cousin (who swore he could fix it) and moved on. I never knew that model had a propensity for that problem, though.
Good thing it was tube-fed; it was always the feed mechanism that eventually jammed it up and stopped the fun. I wonder if there was a version that used a box magazine. Hmmm... ;-)
Yes, it is. In this particular case, it was a machine gun.
"Only if you transfer as in “sell” does it come into the scrutiny of federal law."
The words used in the law are transfer and possession. Olofson transfered possession of a machine gun to the "student".
"What the lab did or did not come up with means nothing under federal gun laws."
LOL! Whatever.
"That was proper under military rules and allowed!"
Anyone can still do the same in certain states. The key is that the registered class III owner must be present and have control over the firearm.
I know how you feel. I was so unhappy when John Ashcroft lost the senatorial election in MO to Mel Carnahan, even though he was dead at the time of the election. Being a decent man, Ashcroft stopped campaigning for the post, but the dems went whole hog, and word came down from the governor that he'd appoint the widow Carnahan as interim senator if dead hubby won. Ashcroft wouldn't speak ill of the dead, and he lost.
But I was thrilled when President Bush appointed John Ashcroft as AG, and I just knew it would be a good thing when I heard Ashcroft's leftist former colleagues smearing and trashing him. And when Ashcroft declared that the Bush Administration saw the Second Amendment as an individual right, I was in hog heaven! But there have been a lot of disappointments since then...
Mark
Your story does not match the one posted, nor the one in the articles or the reports I have read on this case. The student was at the range and the gun functioned correctly. He then placed the gun in the "unmarked" position and it fired 3 rds. and jammed. That one incident brought the attention to the firearm. He had been to the range a few times before without such "automatic" fire.
A single 3 rd. burst with a jam started all of this. The first lab test done on it by ATF did not result in "full auto" in ANY position of the selector switch. Period. It was only after the firearm was further "examined" (whatever that may actually mean), that they tinkered enough to get it to fire full-auto.
I am really puzzled by the blind support of the ATF and their known less-than-above board methods. Unless you have some inside information on this particular case (beyond what has been thus far made available to the public), you are assuming many things, and fabricating other points.
Are you volunteering to do that service for me? The gun cost me very little (and isn't worth much if it were in like-new condition). Having a new spring installed would cost as much as the gun cost. I would just as soon keep it in my safe for now. IF and when I ever decide that I would like to have this little rifle out of the safe for use, I would get it fixed. But it is not (and should have to be) a priority. I have other .22 rifles at my disposal.
I am beginning to wonder - are you an ATF employee? Or maybe just a gun-grabbing mole here on FR?
It was accurate, just not very reliable. {Someone has done some "customizing" on this one}
Nope. The judge was VERY selective about what evidence he allowed the jury to hear. 2A/RKBA arguments were summarily tossed.
The words used in the law are transfer and possession.
Forgot about the whole "shall not be infringed" "shall be the Supreme law of the Land" the "Laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding and the judges of every State shall be bound thereby" did you...
This is the same mindset that decided it was a federal crime to send full-capacity magazines for the Beretta 92/M9 pistol to American soldiers who'd only been issued a single magazine for their handguns due to shortages. After all, they weren't law enforcement officers, and some of them might not have been 21 years of age.
No matter. Most all of us in my old tank outfit *adopted* a currently-serving member in our old unit to ensure they had no shortage of anything we could provide via mail or other means. And one of us was a U.S. congressman with input into the BATFE budgetary hearings, quite willing not only to hold up their annual appropriations, but to see the agency itself charged as a racketeering enterprise for aiding and abetting the enemy by denying equipoment to American troops.
The BATFE backed down when that possibility arose, and that was the end of that.
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.