918v, you're either ignorant or BATFE (same as). One or the other, the fact you joined the same month and year this thread started may be coincidence.

Quoted: <snip> Bladerunner got convicted. Anyone with half a brain understands why this happened, and it isn't because the ATF is corrupt.

Alas, I must be counted among the dimwitted.

Quoted: So you think that people should be able to throw M16 parts in an AR, hope it slamfires, and rejoice when it does, for now they have a post 1986 legal machinegun??? It is a malfunctioning semi-auto after all. Think about the facts of this case: Yahoo fires full auto bursts at the range. Cops respond, fire the gun, and it does indeed fire in bursts. Yahoo tells them he got it that way from Bladerunner. Yahoo tells them Bladerunner knew the gun fired bursts. Bladerunner did not testify on his own behalf because the ATF is evil. Bladerunner got convicted. Anyone with half a brain understands why this happened, and it isn't because the ATF is corrupt.

Either you are reading a different thread, or you are a fucking retard.

The M16 parts were installed by Oly Arms, this has been stated many times in this thread.

There have been rulings on the legality of M16 parts in AR's, many of the big companies use M16 carriers because of this ruling.

This is most likely just another case of an OOS lower since this issue was known to Oly Arms.

It did not fire bursts when the cops tried it, it took some messing around by BATFE to make it malf again. In fact they had to use commercial 223 ammo which uses standard small rifle primers, anyone that reloads for ar15's knows that you are better off using small rifle magnum primers in an AR because they have a harder cup and will be less likely to have slam fires, like those induced by BATFE.

Quoted: 918v, you're either ignorant or BATFE (same as). One or the other, the fact you joined the same month and year this thread started may be coincidence.

Quoted: Quoted: 918v, you're either ignorant or BATFE (same as). One or the other, the fact you joined the same month and year this thread started may be coincidence.

He's insinuating that he's a BATFE Spook.

Quoted: Quoted: Nothing pertinent. Only trivial irrelevant BS. I'm not in a contest, are you? The whole proceding is not trivial nor irrelevant. Your lack of knowledge of the process leads me to believe that your claims of working in the legal or law enforcement field are exaggerated. A hot dog vendor at Angel Stadium can claim he works in Major League Baseball but it does not qualify him to speak of the workings of the league. Your opinion is not more or less valid than anyone else who posts in this thread. I'm here to see how the rest of it unfolds. Your opinion is clear. You really don't have to argue with everyone else who posts here that isn't on board with your opinion.

What lack of knowledge? What the hell do you know about me? I could say the same thing about you and then conclude that you are a garbage man.

Quoted: 918, why don't yo ustop being a BATFE cheerleader (or fluffer, not shure which way you swing), and leave these threads alone. YOu side with the BATFE here and in the RTP thread. You have a serious boner for the BATFE always being right.

I did not say they are always right. That is your exaggerated projection.

Quoted: 918v, you're either ignorant or BATFE (same as). One or the other, the fact you joined the same month and year this thread started may be coincidence.

Yes it is a conspiracy. Do you believe in numerology too?

Quoted: Quoted: So you think that people should be able to throw M16 parts in an AR, hope it slamfires, and rejoice when it does, for now they have a post 1986 legal machinegun??? It is a malfunctioning semi-auto after all. Think about the facts of this case: Yahoo fires full auto bursts at the range. Cops respond, fire the gun, and it does indeed fire in bursts. Yahoo tells them he got it that way from Bladerunner. Yahoo tells them Bladerunner knew the gun fired bursts. Bladerunner did not testify on his own behalf because the ATF is evil. Bladerunner got convicted. Anyone with half a brain understands why this happened, and it isn't because the ATF is corrupt. Either you are reading a different thread, or you are a fucking retard. I can be a retard sometimes. You are rude and crude, however. You should tone down your insults. The M16 parts were installed by Oly Arms, this has been stated many times in this thread. Bladerunner installed M16 parts made by DPMS. Maybe you should reread his posts. There have been rulings on the legality of M16 parts in AR's, many of the big companies use M16 carriers because of this ruling. And none of them are useful to Bladerunner, as they are not precedent. This is most likely just another case of an OOS lower since this issue was known to Oly Arms. So what? Does that allow the end user to run around with a slamfiring AR without bearing any responsibility for repairing the defect? It did not fire bursts when the cops tried it, You're correct. i went back and reread the affidavit. it took some messing around by BATFE to make it malf again. In fact they had to use commercial 223 ammo which uses standard small rifle primers, anyone that reloads for ar15's knows that you are better off using small rifle magnum primers in an AR because they have a harder cup and will be less likely to have slam fires, like those induced by BATFE. Irrelevant. The gun fired in bursts with this ammo. The whole point is that the ATF had evidence that Bladerunner knew of this and did nothing to correct it.

Instead of calling people names, think outside the box:

Can a person knowingly possess a slamfiring AR without any responsibility to repair the condition? If said AR slamfired reliably for hundreds of rounds between malfunctions, would you keep it that way or would you repair it? Do you think it is OK to loan out slamfiring AR's to strangers?

This thread has become completely lame....  Bladerunner please start a new thread if you win on appeal or edit the title with any updates.  Good luck in the meantime.

Unsubscribiiiiinnnngggggg.......  NOW.

Quoted: Bladerunner installed M16 parts made by DPMS. Maybe you should reread his posts.

Sorry I haven’t been able to keep up on things for a while. Had to run down to Ft. Knox for a week.


Just so we are all on the same page PLEASE show us all where I EVER said I installed DPMS M16 parts in ANYTHING, let alone this weapon.

Personally I'm dying to see how bad my Alzheimer's is because this is just slipping my mind right now.

Originally Posted By Hard Rock: This is why I am recommending to Mr. Olofson right now to comment no further on this thread.  I suspect that the BATFU is trying to find a way to get all the lies covered up quickly by putting you in a position where you are found in contempt or some other bullshit.   Mike

There is a ton going on in the background with the ATF and others trying to cover their a$$ end. I just can’t comment on it, YET.

Don’t worry Mike, I’m aware of the connections in here and other places, I promise not to feed the trolls anything more than mere crumbs to keep them on the strait and narrow. So far I think others have been doing a darn good job of keeping them caged for me.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You sound like a tin-foil hat wearing anarchist. I'm not an ATF agent. I don't work for the Federal Government. What should the ATF have done? Beg and plead with Bladerunner to repair his AR? Give him money for the repair or maybe offer to fix it for free? Maybe they had it out for him. Maybe he pissed them off. But he gave them all the ammunition to convict him. And once again, it has been ruled in another court case that a malfunctioning weapon does not meet the definition of full auto as that was not the intent of the law. No it hasn't. Um yes it has. United States vs. Aguilar-Espinosa, 57 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (M.D. Fla. 1999): On the other hand, the law is not intended to trap the unwary innocent, and well intentioned citizen who possess an otherwise semi-automatic weapon that, by repeated use of the weapon, by the inevitable wear and tear of sporting activities, or by means of mere inattention, happenstance, or illfortune, fires more than semi-automatically. Now please don't ever say that a court has NOT found that a malfunctioning Semi-auto is NOT an illegal MG. What was the ISSUE in the Aguilar-Espinosa case?

Why don't you go look it up and read the damn thing like some of the rest of us have done. Then you would have your answer.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So you think that people should be able to throw M16 parts in an AR, hope it slamfires, and rejoice when it does, for now they have a post 1986 legal machinegun??? It is a malfunctioning semi-auto after all. Think about the facts of this case: Yahoo fires full auto bursts at the range. Cops respond, fire the gun, and it does indeed fire in bursts. Yahoo tells them he got it that way from Bladerunner. Yahoo tells them Bladerunner knew the gun fired bursts. Bladerunner did not testify on his own behalf because the ATF is evil. Bladerunner got convicted. Anyone with half a brain understands why this happened, and it isn't because the ATF is corrupt. Either you are reading a different thread, or you are a fucking retard. I can be a retard sometimes. You are rude and crude, however. You should tone down your insults. The M16 parts were installed by Oly Arms, this has been stated many times in this thread. Bladerunner installed M16 parts made by DPMS. Maybe you should reread his posts. There have been rulings on the legality of M16 parts in AR's, many of the big companies use M16 carriers because of this ruling. And none of them are useful to Bladerunner, as they are not precedent. This is most likely just another case of an OOS lower since this issue was known to Oly Arms. So what? Does that allow the end user to run around with a slamfiring AR without bearing any responsibility for repairing the defect? It did not fire bursts when the cops tried it, You're correct. i went back and reread the affidavit. it took some messing around by BATFE to make it malf again. In fact they had to use commercial 223 ammo which uses standard small rifle primers, anyone that reloads for ar15's knows that you are better off using small rifle magnum primers in an AR because they have a harder cup and will be less likely to have slam fires, like those induced by BATFE. Irrelevant. The gun fired in bursts with this ammo. The whole point is that the ATF had evidence that Bladerunner knew of this and did nothing to correct it. Instead of calling people names, think outside the box: Can a person knowingly possess a slamfiring AR without any responsibility to repair the condition? If said AR slamfired reliably for hundreds of rounds between malfunctions, would you keep it that way or would you repair it? Do you think it is OK to loan out slamfiring AR's to strangers?

So you have some proof that he knew it slammed fired and you have proof that it has been slam-firing  for hundreds of rounds?

Happened across some more transcripts. I'm posting a few more excerpts from the transcripts for your reading pleasure. I believe they are self explanatory when it comes to the governments new position on what is a MG.

MR. HAANSTAD: (Assistant US Attorney)
Now, Mr. Savage may be of the opinion that Exhibit 1
is not a machine gun. But it's also clear that Mr. Savage
doesn't consider himself bound by the legal definition of
machine gun.
You heard him testify yesterday that it wouldn't
matter to him if he picked that gun up and pulled the trigger
once and 50 rounds came out or 100 rounds came out, he still
would not consider it a machine gun.
Well, how can that be under the definition that you
have of a machine gun? Again, that's the definition that
controls here, not any notion that Mr. Savage may have as to
what constitutes a machine gun.
A machine gun is specifically designed by statute and,
again, about six pages back -- six pages from the back of the
packet of the jury instructions you're going to receive, that
definition is provided. And clearly, under the legal definition
of "machine gun" that you're going to be asked to apply, Mr. Olofson's gun qualifies because, as Mr. Kingery testified,
as Mr. Kiernicki testified, and as you yourselves all saw in the
video, when you pull the trigger once on that firearm more than
one round is fired.


GOVERNMENT REBUTTAL ARGUMENT
MR. HAANSTAD: Ladies and gentlemen, the defense has
invited you to go down a number of paths that stray from the
straightforward central issues in this case, the first again of
which is, was Mr. Olofson's gun a machine gun?
Now, I've emphasized already that you should focus on
the definition that's provided. And if you do so, you see that
the statute covered not only as Mr. Fahl indicated a weapon that
shoots automatically more than one shot -- and he's right,
that's written in the present tense -- but there's no support in
that statutory definition for the notion that right as you, as
jurors, deliberate, we have to demonstrate to you that this
particular gun shoots automatically. Because the definitionprovides that a machine gun is any weapon which not only shoots
but which is designed to shoot or can be readily restored to
shoot automatically more than one shot with a single function of
the trigger.


And again, when Mr. Kingery did the test fires,
including the one that's on video that you've seen -- we didn't
take you to a test range yesterday but we attempted to bring the
test firing range to you by video taping this, and in that video
tape you can see that when Mr. Kingery pulls the trigger once,
more than one round is expelled, clearly satisfying the first
part of that definition of "machine gun" that I've asked you now
several times to focus on. But remember, you don't necessarily have to stop there
according to this definition because it also, the definition
also includes firearms that were designed to shoot or can
readily be restored to shoot automatically.
So again, under that definition there's no support for
the notion that every time you go out and fire this weapon ithas to fire automatically. Simply not consistent with the plain
language of this statute which the court is going to instruct
you to follow.
Nor is there any support for the notion that you have
to use a particular type of ammunition when you fire the
firearm, and that only if you use a specific type of ammunition
and it fires automatically does it qualify as a machine gun.
Again, that particular requirement, that any
particular type of ammunition be used, simply is not included
within this definition. And not only is not included, but it's
not consistent with this definition because, again, it covers
not only shoot but also which are designed or can readily be
restored to shoot automatically. Now, as I mentioned earlier, it's somewhat tempting to
sort of point by point discuss all of the evidence that came
out, but the fear is that it's, again, gonna lead you down a
path that's really not -- right on this, right in connection
with the straightforward central issues that are presented in
this case.
But, to the extent that there's some concern, for
example, that some kind of special ammunition was used in order
to induce this automatic fire, keeping aside, setting aside for
one minute whether that matters even under this definition,
remember the testimony was that the unique type of ammunition
that was used was the military grade ammunition that OfficerKingery used in that first test fire that he did. That was the
nonstandard ammunition, the military stuff.
When Mr. Kingery, on a subsequent test, used regular
standard commercially available civilian ammunition, the type of
ammunition that you would go out and buy at the sporting goods
store, and he popped that ammunition into Exhibit Number 1,
Exhibit 1 fired automatically. It did so on the second test and
it did so again on this test that you've seen and which you can
see again when you're back deliberating.


And that's what your focus should be on. It shouldn't
be on this testimony about what might have happened in some
hypothetical case. It shouldn't be about what's happened in
other cases. You're asked to decide whether or not this
particular gun fires automatically. And not only have you seen
it with your own eyes fire automatically, but you've heard this
explanation as to why it fires automatically.
Now, there's also a bit of a danger, I'm afraid, that
you're gonna focus too much on the possible modifications
or performance of this gun. There's no requirement that you
find that Mr. Olofson himself performed the modifications that
converted this AR-15 into an M-16. In fact, there's no requirement that you believe that
the gun's been modified to fire as an M-16. The sole issue that
you have to decide is whether or not the gun in fact firesautomatic. That is, even if a gun came from the manufacturer
assembled as a machine gun, if Mr. Olofson's in possession of
that type of gun, that is, a non-modified but nonetheless
machine gun, and he then transfers it to Mr. Kiernicki, he's
guilty, he falls within this definition.

Based on all this, ladies and gentlemen, keeping in
mind the statutory definition of "machine gun," that is, again,
any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot,
with a manual reloading by a single function of the trigger --that is, again, any weapon that will shoot more than one round
with one pull of the trigger, or that is designed to shoot that
way, or can be readily restored though shoot that way, is a
machine gun.

I'm afraid, that you're gonna focus too much on the possible modifications or performance of this gun. There's no requirement that you find that Mr. Olofson himself performed the modifications that converted this AR-15 into an M-16. In fact, there's no requirement that you believe that the gun's been modified to fire as an M-16. The sole issue that you have to decide is whether or not the gun in fact firesautomatic. That is, even if a gun came from the manufacturer assembled as a machine gun, if Mr. Olofson's in possession of that type of gun, that is, a non-modified but nonetheless machine gun, and he then transfers it to Mr. Kiernicki, he's
guilty, he falls within this definition.

So a malfunctioning gun original as is from the manufacture is now a MG?

Quoted: I'm afraid, that you're gonna focus too much on the possible modifications or performance of this gun. There's no requirement that you find that Mr. Olofson himself performed the modifications that converted this AR-15 into an M-16. In fact, there's no requirement that you believe that the gun's been modified to fire as an M-16. The sole issue that you have to decide is whether or not the gun in fact firesautomatic. That is, even if a gun came from the manufacturer assembled as a machine gun, if Mr. Olofson's in possession of that type of gun, that is, a non-modified but nonetheless machine gun, and he then transfers it to Mr. Kiernicki, he's guilty, he falls within this definition. So a malfunctioning gun original as is from the manufacture is now a MG?

In this case at least. ATF always selectively prosecutes people in cases like this. Because they have no written testing standards they change there tests to produce the results they want, or just outright make differing claims on the same type of weapons in similar configurations and situations depending on what they want to do to the individual involved. So if the "Special" agent is having a good day it is just a malfunctioning semi auto that needs to be repaired, if he/she has a bad day you are now a guilty in their mind of being in possession, converting a gun to, or transferring a MG. Even if you tried to give it to a gunsmith you would still be guilty of transferring a MG.


One of the things we were not allowed to enter into evidence in court is paperwork from the ATF claiming an AR-15 with M16 parts (7 parts in that case, not 4 like in my weapon) is not a MG, but rather an AR15 with M16 components. They went so far as to remove that weapon off of the NFRTR and change it’s classification from a MG to a Rifle. This was done at the SAME TIME that they decided to prosecute me.

Bureau of
Arbitrary
Technical
Findings and
Edicts

Seems to be very appropriate not only in this case, but many others. Seems very apparent to a lot of folks the ATF is merely used to create political prisoners. How many innocent people have been imprisoned in the past, or sit in prison now, because F-TROOP decided they didn’t like them and changed their position at the drop of a hat to meet the needs of a whining agent? Too many in my opinion.

Next question is what are people going to do about a sanctioned federal agency operating as a criminal organization? Wait for the government to fix it and you will be old and gray before they even tell you they are deadlocked on the issue of reform.

Bladerunner,
 I have been following this from the beginning, it seems that your getting a raw deal.  I wish you good luck on your appeal.  Remember not all LEO's and FLEO's are jack booted thugs.  It looks like  you have some bad blood with this one.  I wish you well, and suggest that you no longer loan out firearms to anyone you can't trust with your life.  
  I have had to educate many LEO's that all rifles are not required to have a S/N.  If you manufacture the rifle yourself, that is machine your own receiver.  you are not required to put a S/N on it.  I work closely with many LEO's and make it a point to ask them what they would do if they find a rifle with no S/N, after they say lock them up, I show them the law and they go "ohh that's good to know"  I have gone as far as having to explain that the Clinton AWban is over to many.  
 Again good luck, it seems you have all your eggs in a basket, and should have no problems with your appeal

Quoted: Bladerunner,  I have been following this from the beginning, it seems that your getting a raw deal.  I wish you good luck on your appeal.  Remember not all LEO's and FLEO's are jack booted thugs.  It looks like  you have some bad blood with this one.  I wish you well, and suggest that you no longer loan out firearms to anyone you can't trust with your life.     I have had to educate many LEO's that all rifles are not required to have a S/N.  If you manufacture the rifle yourself, that is machine your own receiver.  you are not required to put a S/N on it.  I work closely with many LEO's and make it a point to ask them what they would do if they find a rifle with no S/N, after they say lock them up, I show them the law and they go "ohh that's good to know"  I have gone as far as having to explain that the Clinton AWban is over to many.    Again good luck, it seems you have all your eggs in a basket, and should have no problems with your appeal

Not to the appeal stage yet. We are hoping common since shows its face and this gets booted when we have our next hearing with the judge. If not then I have no doubt that it will get kicked back.

Quoted: But, to the extent that there's some concern, for example, that some kind of special ammunition was used in order to induce this automatic fire, keeping aside, setting aside for one minute whether that matters even under this definition,

If the .gov position is that the ammo doesn't matter, why not then just use the ammo that the weapon is marked/chambered for?

remember the testimony was that the unique type of ammunition that was used was the military grade ammunition that OfficerKingery used in that first test fire that he did. That was the nonstandard ammunition, the military stuff.

So it's the .gov position that 5.56 ammo is "nonstandard" now?

When Mr. Kingery, on a subsequent test, used regular standard commercially available civilian ammunition, the type of ammunition that you would go out and buy at the sporting goods store,

So now it's the .gov position that you can't "go out and buy" 5.56 ammo at the sporting goods store?

and he popped that ammunition into Exhibit Number 1, Exhibit 1 fired automatically. It did so on the second test and it did so again on this test that you've seen and which you can see again when you're back deliberating.

I keep going back to the language the AUSA used about "bringing the firing range to you [the jury]."

I wish your atty had countered with something to the effect of calling into question why the prosecution was "afraid" to take the jury to the firing range.......

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So you think that people should be able to throw M16 parts in an AR, hope it slamfires, and rejoice when it does, for now they have a post 1986 legal machinegun??? It is a malfunctioning semi-auto after all. Think about the facts of this case: Yahoo fires full auto bursts at the range. Cops respond, fire the gun, and it does indeed fire in bursts. Yahoo tells them he got it that way from Bladerunner. Yahoo tells them Bladerunner knew the gun fired bursts. Bladerunner did not testify on his own behalf because the ATF is evil. Bladerunner got convicted. Anyone with half a brain understands why this happened, and it isn't because the ATF is corrupt. Either you are reading a different thread, or you are a fucking retard. I can be a retard sometimes. You are rude and crude, however. You should tone down your insults. Well since you have already pointed out where I was right on one point, and I'm gonna challenge you on another, my statement still stands, with an amendment. You are either reading a different thread, retarded, or purposely trolling this thread. The M16 parts were installed by Oly Arms, this has been stated many times in this thread. Bladerunner installed M16 parts made by DPMS. Maybe you should reread his posts. Maybe you should There have been rulings on the legality of M16 parts in AR's, many of the big companies use M16 carriers because of this ruling. And none of them are useful to Bladerunner, as they are not precedent. The fact that he didn't install any M16 parts, this gun was as built by Oly, containing parts that are in standard use is definitely proof that he didn't build a machine gun. This is most likely just another case of an OOS lower since this issue was known to Oly Arms. So what? Does that allow the end user to run around with a slamfiring AR without bearing any responsibility for repairing the defect? It did not fire bursts when the cops tried it, You're correct. i went back and reread the affidavit. it took some messing around by BATFE to make it malf again. In fact they had to use commercial 223 ammo which uses standard small rifle primers, anyone that reloads for ar15's knows that you are better off using small rifle magnum primers in an AR because they have a harder cup and will be less likely to have slam fires, like those induced by BATFE. Irrelevant. The gun fired in bursts with this ammo. The whole point is that the ATF had evidence that Bladerunner knew of this and did nothing to correct it. The gun malfunctioned with this ammo, that is it. and it didn't have a known history of malfunctioning other than one time a long time ago. Instead of calling people names, think outside the box: You mean "Think like a retard"? I don't care what the BATFE says, or what a jury of retards think, this was not a criminal act by any stretch of reality. They only way it becomes one is if you think like a fucking retard. Can a person knowingly possess a slamfiring AR without any responsibility to repair the condition? If said AR slamfired reliably for hundreds of rounds between malfunctions, would you keep it that way or would you repair it? Do you think it is OK to loan out slamfiring AR's to strangers? This question does not have any bearing on this discussion since this rifle did not malfunction on a regular basis. It had one instance of it happening when it was new and never repeated it, and it seems that in order to make it malfunction you have to fire ammo that it was not designed to fire. That would be like suing S&W because you loaded up some .357 magnum loads but seated the bullet to 38 special depths and the gun that was only rated for 38 special blew up when using those OOS loads that the gun was not designed to fire.

Do you believe that the gun was not manufactured to fire that ammo??

Seems like a stretch for your argument.

Quoted: Do you believe that the gun was not manufactured to fire that ammo?? Seems like a stretch for your argument.

AR15's are not designed to fire ammo with soft primer cups because of the chance of a slamfire.

Now most of us get away with it quite often, but there should really be no suprise when something like this happens.

As I said before, those of us that reload take this into accoutn when chosing primers and either use small rifle magnum primers or small rifle primers that are known to have hard cups.

What caliber is marked on the rifle? .223, or 5.56?

Of course, we all know that you are only supposed to use the ammunition for which the firearm is marked.

Quoted: What caliber is marked on the rifle? .223, or 5.56? Of course, we all know that you are only supposed to use the ammunition for which the firearm is marked.

A rifle marked .223 still has the potential problem with soft primer cups, the .223 marking on the barrel refers to the chamber being tighter or somehting, it has nothing to do with the floating firing pin that all AR's have.

Have you ever pulled a chambered but not fired round from your rifle and noticed a small ding on the primer? that's from the firing pin slaming forward when the bolt slams the round into the chamber.

Quoted: What caliber is marked on the rifle? .223, or 5.56? Of course, we all know that you are only supposed to use the ammunition for which the firearm is marked.

Barrel is marked as having a 5.56 chamber.

Receiver is marked .223/5.56, meaning it may be made and have a barrel chambered for one or the other.

Quoted: Quoted: What caliber is marked on the rifle? .223, or 5.56? Of course, we all know that you are only supposed to use the ammunition for which the firearm is marked. A rifle marked .223 still has the potential problem with soft primer cups, the .223 marking on the barrel refers to the chamber being tighter or somehting, it has nothing to do with the floating firing pin that all AR's have. Have you ever pulled a chambered but not fired round from your rifle and noticed a small ding on the primer? that's from the firing pin slaming forward when the bolt slams the round into the chamber.

Very true. The design of the AR is not made for soft primers period. .223 soft primed ammo is made for bolt varmint weapons.

Some interesting quotes from testimony of Max Kingery


Q. Okay, and how long have you been with ATF?
A. About two and a half years.

Q. An FEO? Have you been an FEO that whole time?
A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. And what are your duties and responsibilities as an FEO?
A. As an FEO primarily we examine and classify items submitted to us as evidence. We also examine items submitted to technology branch by the firearms industry for classification.
Items that are being imported into the United States are evaluated for their importability. And we answer general firearms related questions to the public and to members of the Industry.

Q. How are you employed prior to working for ATF?
A. Prior to ATF I was a sergeant with the West Virginia State Police.

Q. And what types of firearms training did you receive before you came to ATF?
A. With the state police I was trained with the service side arm, and with the shotgun and carbines. I was also a sniper, so I'm a member of the sniper team.

Q. Okay. And have you received firearms training since joining ATF?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. And what kind of training is that?
A. I received training on the classification of firearms according to the Federal Firearms Guide. And I've attended several armors courses on a number of different types of firearms. Ammunition factory tours, ammunition training at those tours. Training on firearms nexus.

A. And I've written, I believe it's 15, possibly 16 what we call white papers -- Q. What are those?
A. -- on a number of different firearms. It's basically like a homework assignment of paper. The initial part of my position with ATF I was being trained on the job. And part of that training I had to write these papers on a number of different types of firearms. One of those was the AR-15 series of Firearms.

Q. Is your experience with the M-16 purely on a firing level or have you repaired or examined the gun through your training and experience in these other past endeavors?
A. In the past it was mainly usage. With the ATF it's been, it included repair, detailed examination, complete disassembly and Assembly.

Q. In your training and experience as an expert on AR-15 weapons, you're aware, of course, that many AR-15 weapons, especially those manufactured in the '80s, were manufactured with some M-16 internal parts?
A. I'm aware that some were, yes.

Q. Did you ever contact SGW/Olympic Arms about this particular rifle?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Are you aware that SGW has recalled this particular rifle?
A. No, sir.

based on your training, your
experience and your examination of Exhibit 1, is it possible that hammer follow was responsible for causing the firearm to fire automatically on those occasions?
A. As a malfunction or in --
Q. (Interrupting) Yeah, I'm sorry, there was malfunctioning in that way, and that's what was causing the firearm to fire fully automatic?
A. No, there was no malfunction of this firearm at all.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FAHL:
Q. I guess to be clear, is hammer follow a malfunction or not?
A. It can be. It was intended in this instance.
Q. Now, going to Mr. Haanstad's questions about firing three rounds and jamming. Why would somebody design a gun to fire three rounds and then jam, have to eject the bolt, start all over, fire three rounds, jam, and do that?
A. They would not do so, sir.


I can’t help but comment on a few things.

1. Almost all of his “training” is limited to the user level of weapons. The rest seems to be merely on the job or maintenance courses so he can try to understand what kind of weapons he is working with. Len Savage on the other hand creates weapons from scratch, and can redesign and remake them at will to be what he wants them to be. As such he also creates the procedures people like Mr. Kingery use to learn about the weapons in their armorors courses.
2. He is aware of the use of M16 components in Olympic arms/SGW AR’s from the 80’s, but never bothered to contact them for any details. (Plausible deniability through lack of investigation?) Len Savage on the other hand did contact them to verify everything according to his testimony.
3. With all that superior federal training he can’t seem to make up his mine weather the gun is a malfunctioning semi auto or a FA. He has multiple conclusions that contradict themselves on paper, and in his testimony he first claims the gun is malfunctioning, then states there is no malfunction, then ends this excerpt with no one would make a weapon to do this. A lot of Orwellian double speak in there. I find that a stark contrast to Len Savages testimony that never wavered from the point that the weapon was only malfunctioning, was not modified, and that no matter how much it malfunctioned it would not suddenly become a MG. Maybe if he didn’t have all that superior federal training or those wonderful classification procedures (sic) clogging his head, he could come to an easily repeatable scientific conclusion like Mr. Savage did.

A. It can be. It was intended in this instance.

Assumption on his part.

To the best of my knowledge, the ONLY way he can be allowed to state that in court is that, "Given XXX and YY, it's my opinion that the hammer follow through was intentional."

The counsel should have objected and the judge should have sustained.

He cannot POSSIBLY state your intentions.  Only what he THINKS your intentions were.

He's obviously a fucking incompetent, too.

Quoted: A. It can be. It was intended in this instance. Assumption on his part. To the best of my knowledge, the ONLY way he can be allowed to state that in court is that, "Given XXX and YY, it's my opinion that the hammer follow through was intentional." The counsel should have objected and the judge should have sustained. He cannot POSSIBLY state your intentions.  Only what he THINKS your intentions were. He's obviously a fucking incompetent, too.

+1  

Quoted: Quoted: A. It can be. It was intended in this instance. Assumption on his part. To the best of my knowledge, the ONLY way he can be allowed to state that in court is that, "Given XXX and YY, it's my opinion that the hammer follow through was intentional." The counsel should have objected and the judge should have sustained. He cannot POSSIBLY state your intentions.  Only what he THINKS your intentions were. He's obviously a fucking incompetent, too. +1

That's where I stopped reading.  Someone should have objected.

Maybe he meant it was intentional by the FTB in testing.

Quoted: Maybe he meant it was intentional by the FTB in testing.

ooops

Quoted: Some interesting quotes from testimony of Max Kingery <snip>

Excellent follow-up:

Q: So Mr. Kingery, have a lot of people read your white papers?
A: I guess so.  Internally, maybe.
Q: Well, for their sake, I hope your "homework assignment" white papers weren't nearly as inconsistent and "all-over-the-map" as your testimony here today has been.

Quoted: A. It can be. It was intended in this instance. Assumption on his part. To the best of my knowledge, the ONLY way he can be allowed to state that in court is that, "Given XXX and YY, it's my opinion that the hammer follow through was intentional." The counsel should have objected and the judge should have sustained. He cannot POSSIBLY state your intentions.  Only what he THINKS your intentions were. He's obviously a fucking incompetent, too.

It would be fairly obvious if follow-through was intentional... There would have been evidence of modification of the disconnecter, or of removal of the same...

That question should have been asked 'What evidence to you have to support this?'

This is my problem with the ATF...

You are OBVIOUSLY not a criminal or person trying to act illegally but they still take your property, seize everything else and try to F U!

I guess you are lucky they didn't try to pin you as a racist with a sawed-off ala Randy Weaver and his son and wife. (RIP)

Quoted: This is my problem with the ATF... You are OBVIOUSLY not a criminal or person trying to act illegally but they still take your property, seize everything else and try to F U! I guess you are lucky they didn't try to pin you as a racist with a sawed-off ala Randy Weaver and his son and wife. (RIP)

Don't worry; there's still time left.

Bladerunner my thoughts and prayers go out to you and your family. I am so glad I found this thread. It is exactly this kind of behavior by our government that led me to these forums in the first place. (I knew I wanted an AR-15 before the gov't made it impossible for citizens to buy them any longer)

Apparently, Mr. Kingry wasn't such a great sniper in WV.  When I inquired about him to some folks I know, I'll just say that they were less than enthused with his performance.  When I asked about the nature of his termination with WV, they just said that it was F'ed up and left it at that.  

Somehow, I get the feeling that Mr. Kingry wasn't liked very well and from what I learned, he had quite the attitude.

No wonder BATFU jumped at the chance to get another screwball for their organization.  

Still gotta wonder, just where is Sterling Nixon?  Why won't BATFU allow him to testify in court?  Why are they so scared to have his demise made public?

Mike

The sad thing is you get (bookworms) some people in certain offices because they are better at crossing t's and dotting I's and learning every rule by heart, but have NO common sense when it comes to people and things. They usually have attitudes because they know all the rules and they are always right.

Q. I guess to be clear, is hammer follow a malfunction or not?
A. It can be. It was intended in this instance.

sound like he knew his answer before he even looked at the evidence

Q. In your training and experience as an expert on AR-15 weapons, you're aware, of course, that many AR-15 weapons, especially those manufactured in the '80s, were manufactured with some M-16 internal parts?
A. I'm aware that some were, yes.

Q. Did you ever contact SGW/Olympic Arms about this particular rifle?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Are you aware that SGW has recalled this particular rifle?
A. No, sir.

and he gets to retire on a government pension with full health and all that good stuff, he's not paying for his lawyer, I bet Bladerunner has to pay for his lawyer (no reimbursement if he wins)

GOD be with you, your in my prayers

Update?

Quoted: Update?

Not much happening on the legal side. Just waiting to see what the judge has to say about this fiasco. That could take months in the federal system. But I do have CNN stopping over for an hour or so around lunch time. I’ll let you all know how that went. Maybe post a little something of things to come….;)

Quoted: Not much happening on the legal side. Just waiting to see what the judge has to say about this fiasco. That could take months in the federal system. But I do have CNN stopping over for an hour or so around lunch time. I’ll let you all know how that went. Maybe post a little something of things to come….;)

My 20 years experience with the shitbags in the media is that nothing good will come of it.  They will get all their facts wrong carelessly, they will consider you a felon from the get go, and they will edit to make you look like a baby raper.

You are NOT going to get to tell "your side."  You're going to get to tell some soundbites for their side.

Don't do it.

Quoted: Quoted: Update? Not much happening on the legal side. Just waiting to see what the judge has to say about this fiasco. That could take months in the federal system. But I do have CNN stopping over for an hour or so around lunch time. I’ll let you all know how that went. Maybe post a little something of things to come….;)

Trusting CNN to get the facts straight on a case that is very confusing to the sheeple, and to portray you in a favorable light is very risky. Did your attorney think this was a good idea?

Done for the day with CNN. Didn’t take long as I could only really talk about the known facts of the case, but it was interesting none the less.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Update? Not much happening on the legal side. Just waiting to see what the judge has to say about this fiasco. That could take months in the federal system. But I do have CNN stopping over for an hour or so around lunch time. I’ll let you all know how that went. Maybe post a little something of things to come….;) Trusting CNN to get the facts straight on a case that is very confusing to the sheeple, and to portray you in a favorable light is very risky. Did your attorney think this was a good idea?

Attys arn't too happy about it. But they have an interest that seems to me like they want to get it strait.

Quoted: Quoted: Not much happening on the legal side. Just waiting to see what the judge has to say about this fiasco. That could take months in the federal system. But I do have CNN stopping over for an hour or so around lunch time. I’ll let you all know how that went. Maybe post a little something of things to come….;) My 20 years experience with the shitbags in the media is that nothing good will come of it.  They will get all their facts wrong carelessly, they will consider you a felon from the get go, and they will edit to make you look like a baby raper. You are NOT going to get to tell "your side."  You're going to get to tell some soundbites for their side. Don't do it.

Don't think it will be that bad with these guys. Besides, I limited it pretty much to just the facts of the case, can't do a bunch of opinions untill after the case is over.

I hope you borrowed some of the "Len Savage-isms" to help the masses understand (e.g. "According to the AUSA's overly-strict interpretation, if your grandfather's old double-barrel shotgun double-fires, they would consider it a machinegun.  Does a shotgun look like a machinegun?  How ridiculous is that?").

Quoted: I hope you borrowed some of the "Len Savage-isms" to help the masses understand (e.g. "According to the AUSA's overly-strict interpretation, if your grandfather's old double-barrel shotgun double-fires, they would consider it a machinegun.  Does a shotgun look like a machinegun?  How ridiculous is that?").

Untill this case is over I can't publicly give opinions like that. Just the facts...:(

Quoted: Quoted: I hope you borrowed some of the "Len Savage-isms" to help the masses understand (e.g. "According to the AUSA's overly-strict interpretation, if your grandfather's old double-barrel shotgun double-fires, they would consider it a machinegun.  Does a shotgun look like a machinegun?  How ridiculous is that?"). Untill this case is over I can't publicly give opinions like that. Just the facts...:(

Could you have relayed that part of Len's testimony as a fact ?

In other words.... it is a fact that firearms expert Len Savage testified "x,y,z" at the trial, and the AUSA countered with "l,m,n".....