"I sincerely regret being too late to help with the Olofson decision," he wrote me. "Here's a related case precedent from Canada."
I leave it to the principals involved to determine if there is something here they can use.
Mr. Codrea:
My heart goes out to Mr. Olofson. There but for the grace of G_d go many. Mens Rea anyone?
http://nfa.ca/files/RvMacDonaldFullTranscript.pdf (5.6MB) http://nfa.ca/files/RvMacDonaldDecision.pdf (600KB)
"The Crown's theory was that the AR-10 is 'capable of firing projectiles in rapid succession during one pressure of the trigger.' The Crown attempted to show that by playing a video of an officer removing the safety lever from the gun, loading two cartridges into the magazine, and then firing a burst of two shots. The video went on to show the officer loading three cartridges into the magazine, and firing a burst of three shots. Conclusive proof, right?"
"WRONG. The firearm was merely malfunctioning. Removing the safety lever allowed the trigger mechanism parts to move into a WRONG position, and prevented the sear from holding the hammer back -- as it is designed to do. So: Fire, extract, eject, feed --and, as the bolt reaches the forward-and-locked position, the hammer -- which has been FOLLOWING the bolt instead of staying cocked as it is designed to do -- gives a slight blow to the firing pin. It is a VERY weak blow -- NOT enough to fire most cartridges."
"When the AR-10 -- or any other semi-auto rifle -- is demonstrating 'hammerfollow' --it is NEVER cocked. Proper hammer impact is IMPOSSIBLE."
For what it's worth, I don't know if American courts allow Canadian court decisions to be used. We can use decisions from the U.S., U.K. and Australia and possibly other Commonwealth countries. I've just started going through our files, digitizing hard copy decisions we've had on file and I had a specific request for this one. Afterward I popped onto your waronguns blog, I remembered Mr. Olofson and my heart sank.
Let me know if there is some way of making an advanced purchase of "Absolved" by Mr. Vanderboegh. It would find a nice home right beside my copy of "Unintended Consequences."
--
David Hamel
National Firearms Association
Tel. 780-439-1394
Fax. 780-439-4091
Email: info@nfa.ca
Again, could be any of us.
ReplyDeleteI admire Mr. Olofson's restraint and willingness to be victimized by playing by their distorted rules.
Not everyone will.
Hate to quibble, cuz that a good on ya letter. But, the USA isn't a Commonwealth.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I've expressed concern before when SCOTUS judges talk about international law--we have a Constitution. That said, if any of the concepts introduced here can be made applicable/transferrable to US law counterparts, there shouldn't be any danger in that.
ReplyDeletewhen you're away from your rifles, take your firing pins with you.
ReplyDeleteDavid said,
ReplyDelete"...if any of the concepts introduced here can be made applicable/transferrable to US law counterparts, there shouldn't be any danger in that."
Yes, there is danger in that. We all would love to allow anything that helps us. However, when you allow decisions from another country to help you, you must also allow decisions that would hurt you. That seems to follow, does it not?
As someone else likes to say, "Can open...worms everywhere."
"when you allow decisions from another country..."
ReplyDeleteThat's not what I said, anon.
I'm saying if the logic used in this case can be applied to US law...
Unless I have misread the available information, that very concept WAS available from Len Savage, only the court chose not to hear it. It's just too bad someone with firearms knowledge and experience wasn't on the jury, who could have explained to the ladies why the government's case was a damnable lie.
ReplyDeleteThe similarities are not lost on me, Gaviota--and the fact that according to ATF, a malfunction is not an excuse--I guess what I'm hoping is that someone on Olofson's team might be able to go through the fine print of the linked documents and find something that night be useful.
ReplyDelete