The term “machinegun” means 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.As we saw in our recent interview with David E. Young, original intent can play a significant role in (honest) judicial proceedings. Supporting briefs are counting on documentation of founding era thought to guide the ruling in Heller.
The same should be done for Olofson. And the advantage here is, not only should records exist, but many of the legislative "founders" who approved U.S. Code firearm-related definitions are still around.
I've been told--but have not verified--that the discussion of malfunctions came up and was dismissed because it was considered a "gimme." Anyway, at this point, it's hard to imagine what the defense would have to lose by looking into whether the "framers" of the machinegun definition intended to include malfunctioning semiautos.
2 comments:
It boggles the mind that there even IS an Olofson case. If my throttle pedal assembly breaks and my engine gets stuck at 6,000 rpms, I'm intentionally driving a race car on city streets and should be prosecuted for speeding, reckless endangerment and on and on? I can't imagine. But guns are special, apparently. So special that benefit of the doubt is out and presumption of guilt is in.
And Mr. Olofson is in the military Reserves. Uncle Sam can stick a true assault rifle in his hands and ship him anywhere and it's perfectly OK. Actually, Olofson CAN'T REFUSE.
What a country.
Just a question, not perfectly clear on the history of the AR family.
Was it an automatic first redesigned to be a semi or vice versa?
Just curious because if this crap stands then the next target will be any semi based on an automatic using the argument the weapon was "designed" as a machinegun.
Post a Comment