It's a sad day.

I'm sure you'all've been following David Olofson's case.

60 + page thread: Update on BATFE raid page 62, containing sentence and commentary.

Refresher:

Olofson's  troubles

The Accidental Felon

By Jeff Knox

           (January 29, 2008) There are several ways for a person to unintentionally commit a felony, but most of them are looked at by prosecutors, judges, and juries as the accidents they are and dealt with accordingly.  Such is not always the case however, especially when firearms are involved; for the past 2 years David Olofson has been learning that the hard way.  Olofson is a regular guy who happens to be fond of AR15 style sport-utility rifles.  He loaned a rifle to a friend.  While the friend was shooting it he moved the safety switch to a point beyond the Fire position.  The rifle fired a couple of short bursts and jammed.  Someone at or near the club called the police to complain about machinegun fire.  The police notified the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and David Olofson was subsequently charged and convicted of illegally transferring a machinegun.
           Neither Olofson nor his friend was charged with possession of an unregistered machinegun or with illegally manufacturing, modifying, or otherwise making a machinegun.  Obviously ATF did not believe they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Olofson or his friend had intentionally altered the rifle to fire full-auto so they prosecuted on the easier charge of transferring.  Everyone agreed that the gun belonged to Olofson and that he had loaned it to his friend.  That meant that the only issue in question in the case was whether the gun was a machinegun.  Since ATF is the final arbiter in determining whether a gun is a machinegun, and the law defining machineguns tends to be selectively interpreted by them, the government had a distinct advantage.

As a matter of fact, when the ATF Firearms Technical Branch (FTB) examined the rifle they concluded that it was not a machinegun.  They did find that if the Safety switch was moved beyond its normal range of motion, the gun would fire once and jam, leaving a loaded round in the chamber.  They determined that moving the Safety in such a way interfered with the trigger disconnector causing the hammer to follow the bolt as it returned to battery rather than being stopped by the sear; a fairly common malfunction known as hammer-follow.

At the request of the local ATF agent, the FTB tested the gun a second time using a brand of .223 ammunition known for having sensitive primers.  Those tests resulted in intermittent, unregulated, automatic fire and jamming due to hammer-follow, but this time the FTB concluded that, under strict interpretation of the law, the gun’s malfunction did make it a machinegun.

The cornerstone of this charge is the government’s contention that it doesn’t matter whether a gun fires multiple shots as a result of malfunction or modification because the law defines a machinegun as; “… any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”  While on the witness stand, firearms expert Len Savage asked the Assistant US Attorney prosecuting the case if that would make his grandfather’s old double-gun a machinegun if it malfunctioned and fired both barrels with one pull of the trigger.  The AUSA responded by paraphrasing the legal definition of a machinegun with emphasis placed on “any weapon which shoots… more than one shot… by a single function of the trigger.”

Anyone experienced with semi-automatic firearms knows that hammer-follow is a relatively common malfunction which usually does not result in a sharp enough blow to the primer to result in ignition.  When it is enough to trigger the primer, the resulting fire is very dangerous for the shooter.  Semi-auto firearms are not designed to withstand the stresses of full-automatic fire, particularly unregulated automatic fire.  A true machinegun has mechanical systems in place to control the gun’s rate of fire, literally pausing momentarily between shots.  A gun firing by hammer-follow does not have these controls and will fire as fast as the bolt spring can cycle the action.

In the Olofson case, the government entered into evidence a tightly edited video clip of one of their testers firing Olofson’s gun for a relatively long full-auto string.  The cyclic rate was estimated to be near 1700 rounds per minute, more than twice that of a properly regulated M16.  The shooter clearly understood the danger involved as he was holding the firearm well away from his face and body in obvious fear that the rifle would break apart at any moment.

At the government’s insistence, the court refused to allow Olofson’s firearms expert to physically examine the gun; he was only allowed to observe as an ATF employee took the gun through a function check and opened the action to his view.  What he saw were standard, unaltered components of the same type and configuration that were included in this particular brand of rifle from the factory over two decades ago; parts that are known by ATF to produce exactly the type of malfunction noted and in response to which ATF had once ordered a safety recall.

In another recent case, ATF removed a gun from the machinegun registration rolls because the gun was manufactured as an AR15 and had been intentionally modified to fire in full-auto mode using the hammer-follow method.  ATF ruled that such a gun was not a machinegun, but a semi-auto in need of repair.  By removing the gun from the NFA rolls ATF devalued the gun from a market value of around $20,000.00 to about $1,500.

Olofson’s judge and jury were not allowed to learn about either the ATF ordered recall or the reclassification of a rifle like Olofson’s as not being a machinegun, because ATF and the US Attorney claimed that such information was prohibited from disclosure by tax privacy laws.  This contention now appears to be patently false and the judge has egg on his face for not making the government prove their privacy claim.

I don’t really know David Olofson and I have no personal knowledge of any of the facts in this case.  I have spoken with Olofson, reviewed the case documents and spoken with Len Savage, the firearms expert who was present for most of the trial.  From those interviews and documents I can not determine with any certainty the complete facts of this case.  What I am certain of is that David Olofson was convicted on flimsy evidence without a proper opportunity to present a reasonable defense.  If the government can destroy his life for nothing more than loaning a malfunctioning rifle to a friend, then no gun owner is safe from the threat of government agents.

David Olofson is a decorated Army veteran and member of the Active Reserves with over 16 years of service.  He has a wife and three kids, including a new daughter born in the midst of this mess.  Olofson is a firearms rights activist who has been willing to fight the system and face arrest for exercising his legal rights.  He has won those fights and forced the police to obey the law when they were inclined not to.  Now he has been convicted of a crime that doesn’t appear to have been a crime at all and is on the verge of losing his Army pension, his right to own firearms, and his very liberty.

Olofson is working on an appeal of this travesty and if there is any justice left in our system this conviction will be reversed.  That won’t undo the damage that has been done and you can bet that the overzealous government employees who perpetrated this abomination will not be asked to pay restitution or even have negative remarks put in their personnel files.

The Firearms Coalition is encouraging concerned citizens to contact their elected representatives in Washington and demand that they take a closer look at this case and launch a full investigation.  We are also working with members of Congress to get the definition of a machinegun clarified so this type of harassment won’t be facilitated by the letter of the law in the future.  Until that is accomplished, I encourage gunowners to be especially cautious; a little paranoia can be a healthy thing.

If you think something like this couldn’t happen to you, consider another recent case where an anonymous tip (read crotchety neighbor, disgruntled ex, or hoplophobic co-worker) called federal authorities and claimed that a young man possessed machineguns.  ATF and the local police showed up, went through the man’s collection, and confiscated an “assault weapon” for testing.  The fellow knows that the gun was semi-auto when ATF took it, but after learning about David Olofson’s odyssey he is very concerned about what the Firearms Technical Branch’s conclusion will be.

Interested persons wishing to delve deeper into the Olofson case can find more information and much of Olofson’s documentation in an extended forum discussion at AR15.com.  Olofson is the poster known as Bladerunner2347.  To go to the discussion, click here.  To browse through the documents without commentary, click here.

I have a hard time with this one.

I know the justice system is far from perfect but I have always tried to respect it.

They got this one wrong, very wrong

Sounds like he has really good grounds for appeal. Anyone know if it would be in front of the same judge? If so, I'm thinking he may not be too happy with BATFE playing fast and loose with the law to increase their advantage.

I just read an article on GD the other day that said the BATFE is almost out of a job. The FBI is reasserting itself in the explosives and firearms area, and the states already manage their Alcohol and Drugs.

One can only hope.

Shrink their scope so it only covers FFL's and NFA and maybe they will become more efficient

Never happen but it would be nice


I wonder if the FBI would be better to deal with or worse???

When the government in it's zeal, prosecutes the people under the color of the rule of law with not only shifting standards and backroom underhanded tactics.  The rule of law becomes a joke.  The government proves to its people that it does not care about the rule of law.  
The "People" should pay the government the same deference.

Now this is different , very different

I thought more ppl would be interested in this case.  Or maybe there is concern about public comment on an atf issue?

The more you read (especially the ATF docs) the more it makes me wonder.

I had valid questions that were never answered by the guy.

A full auto FCG without it being pinned on the Auto side seems very strange.

Maybe he is innocent..... the guy tried to represent himself too much, make arguments that were critical, but should have been reserved for later, and truly dropped the ball on this case.

When people asked certain questions he would talk about holding out per his attorney's request.

People jumped on a bandwagon about a malfunction. It was more than a malfunction. Here is a guy that BUILDS ARs for people, yet doesn't think about a M16 FCG in his gun. He had been buying M16 parts (why without a MG?).

There are problems on BOTH sides of this case. My experience with the feds shows they only take easy cases they can win.......

I have not read the whole thread but this "Bladerunner2347"/Olofson guy is not helping himself.  Once I read the stuff where he was challenging the Federal Gov't on jurisdiction, I knew he was a fool.  He is trying to make a Civil Procedure argument with case law that he does not understand.  He also mentioned an earlier run-in with the ATF in '94 but was vague on the details.  It appears that he has been on their radar for some time.  Plus, if you read the Affidavit in support of the Criminal Complaint, the ATF apparently has Kiernicki (the guy who borrowed the rifle at issue) reporting that Olofson knew the gun was capable of burst fire.  There are other damning statements that Olofson reportedly made to the local CLEO and to Kiernicki.  If Kiernicki and the CLEO testified to and backed these statements in court, Olofson clearly has major problems.

Maybe I have to read more of it, but at first glance this one does not sound like some regularly law-abiding individual who the ATF randomly chose to harass...

The federal argument is a valid one, but not in this case. The only undecided case about that aspect happened in the 9th Circuit (our area) and the Supreme Court asked the 9th Circus to review the case again. The case never was reviewed.

Being wishy washy and not disclosing simple facts makes me believe something is wrong.... just my experience talking though.

Quoted: The federal argument is a valid one, but not in this case.

Which case are you talking about?  The Perez case I am familiar with comes out of the 2nd Circuit and involves loansharking where the defendant claimed that Congress lacked jurisdiction to make laws since loansharking is a local activity and not interstate commerce.  Not surprisingly, the court disagreed.  It held that Congress had acted properly under its Commerce Clause powers in exercising its authority to make loansharking illegal.  It sustained the Perez conviction and stated that loansharking had an adverse affect on interstate commerce.  it did not state that interstate commerce is irrelevant as he alleges.  

The Lopez case is the modern case that limited Federal power to regulate firearms under the Commerce Clause.  Lopez was the guy with a gun at his high school (5th Circuit, I think) and bringing a gun to school had become a federal crime.  The Supreme Court struck down the law because it was too far removed from Congress' power to regulate conduct under their powers that derive from the Commerce Clause.  The Court did not see the connection between schools and commerce.

Whatever the case, Olofson did not help his cause by arguing that the BATF is not a legitimate federal agency and the Federal Gov't does not have jurisdiction even though it is well established at this point that the Federal Government claims and exercises power over machine guns in civilian hands.  You guys can argue what extent the BATF should be allowed to exercise authority, but presently it does enforce the various federal gun laws including the NFA.

Here is the case name and a link to the summary. I can't get the actual case to load right, so I provided another link.

U.S. v Stewart ..... the court's approval of homemade machine guns that don't leave the state and thereby disputing the commerce clause.

Summary article

Non-working PDF for me

Maybe Chiz can check the outcome or if there ever was a review by the 9th Circuit (my subsrciption is out of date).

Quoted: I have not read the whole thread but this "Bladerunner2347"/Olofson guy is not helping himself.  Once I read the stuff where he was challenging the Federal Gov't on jurisdiction, I knew he was a fool.  He is trying to make a Civil Procedure argument with case law that he does not understand.  He also mentioned an earlier run-in with the ATF in '94 but was vague on the details.  It appears that he has been on their radar for some time.  Plus, if you read the Affidavit in support of the Criminal Complaint, the ATF apparently has Kiernicki (the guy who borrowed the rifle at issue) reporting that Olofson knew the gun was capable of burst fire.  There are other damning statements that Olofson reportedly made to the local CLEO and to Kiernicki.  If Kiernicki and the CLEO testified to and backed these statements in court, Olofson clearly has major problems. Maybe I have to read more of it, but at first glance this one does not sound like some regularly law-abiding individual who the ATF randomly chose to harass...

This story sounded fucked up from the beginning. Either he was getting screwed or the story was screwed and honestly the whole thing sounded too fucked up to be true. At least, thats what I hoped.

If Kiernicki reported that Olofson knew the gun was capable of malfunctioning into a machine gun and it is true that is all the evidence I need to take back anything negative I have said about the BATFE on this case.

Quoted: Here is the case name and a link to the summary. I can't get the actual case to load right, so I provided another link. U.S. v Stewart ..... the court's approval of homemade machine guns that don't leave the state and thereby disputing the commerce clause. Summary article Non-working PDF for me Maybe Chiz can check the outcome or if there ever was a review by the 9th Circuit (my subsrciption is out of date).

I'm sure Chiz will return with a link to show that anything Stewart got away with at the 9th Circuit level was overturned.  I do remember the Supreme Court largely overturning the parts of the decision favorable to Stewart.  Failing to cross state lines does not mean that you are not having an effect on interstate commerce...

Well, the ATF won't take a gun case unless we can prove it crossed state lines.... same goes for ammo.