The opposition would have none of that. Savage was not permitted to personally examine the rifle — not even to touch it. He was required to observe as the ATF officer opened it for inspection. His professional credentials were challenged by the prosecution, who wanted his testimony excluded, even though Savage is a firearm designer by profession, and the government’s expert witness received all of his training in the 2-1/2 years he’d been with the bureau. Then the prosecution reneged on its pledge not to sequester witnesses, and had Savage removed from the courtroom so he could not hear the government’s testimony.The timing of this could not be more fortuitous as far as current developments in the Olofson case go--particularly as I submitted the draft to my editor at the beginning of March.
My newest Guns Magazine Rights Watch column is now online
29 comments:
This is not just another signpost but a BILLBOARD on the Highway to Hell.
It's like, why even pretend to have a trial when a rubber stamp will do?
I see that Rudy Giuliani is in Kiev helping a guy with his campaign for mayor. Did the Russians exchange some KGB guys to be consultants for our legal system?
"We will bury you!" said Nikita Khrushchev.
You can smell the fresh-turned earth.
What I would like to know is the name of the fascist little creep who called the cops in the first place, as well as the name of the Stazi who called the BATFU.
Even the "gunnie" community is not immune from the quislings, as I found out the last time I went to the Arkansas Fish & Game range in Mayflower, AR. When I drove up, I saw a sign that forbid concealed weapons. So, being a good citizen, I unhostered my sidearm and left it in the truck, only to have the short, fat little turd at the office (I won't dignify him with the honorable title rangemaster) lecture me about losing my permit if he saw fit to report me for bringing my gun to... a shooting range!
This and other nasty little rules is the reason I don't shoot at public ranges anymore.
I'm going to take the government's side in this posting. I want to hear where I'm wrong, OK?
Olofson wasn't charged with possession of a MG. He was charged with transfering a MG. Never mind the AR wasn't built to fire auto and did so because of bad parts the manufacter used. Mr. Olofson knen the gun could fire full auto if the switch was put in the 3rd position. He ever told that to the guy he gave the AR to. The government is saying Olofson knew the gun could fire full auto and it doesn't matter if it was by defect or was made to do it. He knew it could and never had it fixed. Keep in mind, the government isn't charging him with possession, but transfering. The letter from Olympic Arms would only be good if he was charged with possession. He could say it never had fired full auto before and the gun was defected by the way it was built. This is not what he's on trial for. He told the guy the gun would fire full auto on the 3rd setting, and the gun did in fact fire full auto on the 3rd setting (no matter if it was a hammer fire or not) he know the gun was able to work as a full auto when he transfered it.
The judge bought into this because Olofson knew the gun was able to fire full auto and gave it to someone else. Nothing else matters to the government: The gun fired full auto, no matter how it did it and Olofson knew it and transfered the gun. Olofson is not being charged with possession.
OK boyz tell me where the governmet is wrong with this line of reasoning.
What I'm trying to do is break down the government's reasoning to understand the case better.
The expression you are looking for is "devil's advocate." I hope you're a person of even temperament, because you risk being fatally flamed in an anatomically perianal area when you play devil's advocate on a gun blog.
That being said, I understand your stated motive.
My reasoning is:
1. You can't transfer unless you possess. Charging him with transfer but not possession is a logical incongruity, but as I understand it, charging him with possession was problematic because while the gun was in his possession, it was an AR-15. It wasn't until he gave it to his friend that it became a machine gun. It is that sort of legal manipulation, along with the other chicanery that went on, that disgusts fair-minded people.
2. The BATFU did not have, and does not have, published technical and testing systems to provide reliable data to judges and juries. They rely upon deceit, deception, and perjury to accomplish their pernicious and nefarious goals. That's why they denied Len Savage the opportunity to examine the firearm in question. He could have instantly spotted the problem(s), and reported honestly to the jury, thereby derailing the BATFU's case. If there were justice in this case at all, the act of perjury by the BATFU would have resulted in all of their testimony being disregarded, and the case dismissed, or at least declared a mistrial.
3. And then there's that pesky "shall not be infringed" thing.
Avejoe, that's a very interesting interpretation. Still troubling, though.
Let me suggest a complete hypothetical, which of course never happened to me or anyone I know.
In principle, I could become an federal firearms felon by testing a recently-reworked semi-auto pistol for my favorite range-master.
Let's say I turn it back in after it double-fires a couple of times. I report the double-fires to the rangemaster, so obviously I know it was a machine gun.
By your analysis, if I understand it correctly, I should refuse to return the weapon to the rangemaster, as I would knowingly be transferring a machine gun without a license. I don't know what I should do instead, though. I think once the gun malfunctions, I'd be trapped.
No matter what the government's claim in the case, its true basis is that a malfunctioning or mishandled firearm is a full-auto machine gun, which must reasonably be a bogus claim.
===
By the way, don't judges normally overturn laws that are so vague they become unconstitutionally broad?
This case should be moved to the Supreme Court, IMO.
"Yossarian is unable to fly the required number of missions to be discharged from duty because his superiors keep increasing the number of required missions. Additionally, he cannot obtain a Section 8 by pretending to be insane because his superiors see his desire to get out of flying as a sign of perfect sanity (hence Catch-22)."
"That's some catch, that Catch-22."
"It's the best there is."
"Catch-22" by Joseph Heller
Based on the governments definition of a machine gun, why wouldn't a Winchester Model 12 be considered a machine gun? Pull the trigger once and keep shucking. Ridiculous? Used to be.
Thanks guys for your two cents worth, I have a little better understanding. The big jump that I see is from possession to transfer. If the government couldn't put a case against him for possession, then they shouldn't be able to do so for the transfer. Keep in mind the transfer by using the wording "transfer" is misleading because there was no quid pro quo. Being he could legally own a poorly build firearm, then allowing someone to used it doesn't make the gun a MG all at once. If it wasn't a MG when he had possession then it's never a MG. He could have been charged with endangerment had it been proved he knew the gun could hurt someone if a hammer fire could cause injury.
Thanks for the information guys, I knew I could get some answers that made sense. I have it. If the firearm wasn't a MG with mere possession then allowing someone to use it doesn't make it a MG all at once.
U.S. Senator Arlen Specter wants independent probe!
" ... of the New England Patriots videotaping opposing coaches' play signals.
"What is necessary is an objective investigation," Specter said, "and this one has not been objective."
"Specter "was unforgiving in his criticism of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, saying Goodell was caught in an apparent conflict of interest because the NFL doesn't want the public to lose confidence in the league's integrity."
Nice priorities, Congress.
of course Specter is no friend of ours, but SOMEONE on the Hill should say SOMETHING.
Defender said: someone on the hill should say something.
I believe its no longer football season and I'm sure they will have plenty to say about baseball being the season is under way, batter up!
Big question guys.
SS109 (green tip) is currently legal to possess. After I read Len's letters back and forth to the ATF about them saying his receiver wasn't a firearm, and then re-evaluating it and finding that it is a firearm, what is to stop them from saying SS109 is AP ammo (again) and going after anyone who has purchased it?
Stephen,
The answer is nothing. There is nothing to stop them. So far, that is the evidence provided.
They break down your door and take your stuff. They lie. They keep your stuff with no charges filed.
In other words, they say what the law is and who has broken that law. The court does not allow a proper defense. We can't allow you to present evidence or testimony that you are not guilty.
This case has been on CNN. Do you think anyone in government is not aware of what is going on?
I think we may have a problem here. The big question isn't what has happened here. The big question is what is the solution?
Stephen sees how it all comes together. "That's not SPORTING ammunition! That's not a TARGET SHOOTING foregrip or scope! A five-round magazine is all you need; after all, you can only legally shoot this gun at the range. What, you think paper targets are going to gang up on you?!?"
I don't know anyone who has a semi-auto who DOESN'T have some surplus green-tip.
Here's what I'm saying guys.... I think this is all fitting in their plan. They, and by they I mean the ATF, are going to come down soon and say "We have re-evaluated SS109, and this is going to be re-classified as AP ammo. Anyone caught with this will be a felon."
Ok, Now let's look at the States. Most States have a provision about AP being illegal, and the States take their definition from the ATF! So... now you have State AND Federal charges against you, for owning something that was legal at one time. Think it won't happen?
Now, we all know, that ANY rifle ammo will penetrate "bulletproof vests" (I'm not talking vests specifically made for rifle ammo, ie- ceramic plate or anything like that). And that would include Joe Shmo's 30.06 deer rifle. Now, do they go so far as to make a 30.06 round AP? Not now they won't, but it will come. It has to to fit their definition of AP.
Just as a malfunction turns into a machine gun.
"... what is to stop them from saying SS109 is AP ammo (again) and going after anyone who has purchased it?"
SS109 should do the job just fine. Personally, I advocate something slightly heavier, e.g., 7.62x51 (any weight).
"[W]hat is to stop them from...going after anyone who has purchased it?"
I'm tempted to say "SS109 ammo," but y'all know how cautious I need to be about appearances...
bob r, that was just plain scary.
Avgjoe, what's with the "switch in the third position"? Sounds to me like you're describing an actual select-fire assault rifle. But Olofson's gun is a semi-auto only, isn't it?
It's just wrong for the BATFE to define a defective gun as a machine gun when it string-fires. It is not a machine gun by design, and BAFFEces should, by all that is right, judge it that way. But BATFEces clearly has an agenda, and one day, they'll cross the wrong guy who won't trust the gov't to give him a fair trial, and will wreak absolute havoc with them. I don't think "Unintended Consequences" is that far off anymore.
Stephen said: "Here's what I'm saying guys.... I think this is all fitting in their plan. They, and by they I mean the ATF, are going to come down soon and say "We have re-evaluated SS109, and this is going to be re-classified as AP ammo. Anyone caught with this will be a felon.""
They could not use this to claim existing owners are felons or criminals. That would violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution, and they have not yet nullified that part of the Constitution. However, they might be able to ban subsequent purchases of the ammo (ignoring the issue, for the moment, that this would violate the 2nd Amendment's "shall not be infringed" guarantee).
"That would violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution"
I understand that this *would* violate the Constitution, and I realize that it doesn't matter to them.
That being said, they are going to make it illegal to possess, by not "registering" or "abandoning with them" or some other language. You would then have to prove that you purchased it before the ban went into effect, and who keeps receipts for ammo?
If Olofson's AR15 had an M16 selector, it would go into the very scary 3rd position, but it wouldn't (or shouldn't) have any effect. It just simply doesn't matter.
"That would violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution, and they have not yet nullified that part of the Constitution."
I presume everyone here has heard of the Lautenberg Amendment?
David Codrea said...
"I presume everyone here has heard of the Lautenberg Amendment?"
Yes. But, this Amendment was passed by the legislative branch, not by an administrative agency. And, while I agree that there is a strong push to deny us our rights on all fronts, I think that I disagree with the argument that the ATF is going to pursue a course that will violate the ex post facto restrictions of the Constitution in new ways when there is not an explicit mandate from the legislature for them to do so. Now, I could see CONgress trying to make such a push with an unconstitutional law that then enables the ATF to violate the ex post facto provision. I am just a little dubious that ATF would make such a dumb move without first getting its marching orders from CONgress.
I could be wrong, and I am certainly not going to bet the farm on ATF's ability to follow the Constitution. The people who pull stunts like this are usually cowards, and cowards like to have plausible deniability. ATF won't have plausible deniability on this issue unless congress first grants ATF a mandate.
I am making a technical argument about the process and the order of the steps, not about the end result. We agree on the potential end result. I just think that it is important to get the process right because it helps us to properly analyze the situation and make better plans.
Stephen said: "That being said, they are going to make it illegal to possess, by not "registering" or "abandoning with them" or some other language. You would then have to prove that you purchased it before the ban went into effect..."
Yes. I think this is a more accurate statement, and I believe that this is exactly how it could be done.
I may not have been totally clear in my above posting. I was responding to David Codrea and Stephen independently of each other. In my response to Stephen I was not trying to draw a comparison between his posting and David's posting. I was referring back to Stephen's prior posting when I said "...this is a more accurate statement."
One more follow up: I was making an argument above about being precise in one's arguments, and then, I may have been ambiguous. The irony is not lost on me.
Once again why would an honest and innocent man submit to trial? They seem to me to have disincentivized honest men from believing doing so.
Avgjoe, what's with the "switch in the third position"? Sounds to me like you're describing an actual select-fire assault rifle. But Olofson's gun is a semi-auto only, isn't it?
From what I have heard is some of the firearms that are not full auto have the marking on the receiver as if it was a full auto, regardless of the fact, it's not a full auto but a look alike. That the inside of the firearm is clearly not of a full auto firearm, but markings make it look like a full auto so it's a full auto, per se, ATF.
My question is this: Is a play gun that has the markings of a full auto a full auto?
Nevertheless, this situation is not about looks or markings. It's about a firearm that has markings that mean nothing and the firearm was a product liability lawsuit waiting to happen that could have hammer fired and killed or injured the shooter a federal crime?
I didn't know that, Joe.
And I like your comment about the BATFEces caling a toy gun "full-auto" just because it has those markings. I wouldn't put it past them to pull that stunt. What I would find scary, though, is they can select juries that will buy it.
If I put a #3 sticker on my car, does it become a Dale Ernhardt racing car????
If I put a button on my dashboard of my Dale Ernhardt racing car, and call it a James Bond whatchamacallit, does that make it so?
Post a Comment