Instructor convicted after rifle jams

[TeamSpringFieldXD]

This is crazy, my friends ruger 10/22 malfunctioned and used to fire bursts for some reason and he sent it back to ruger and they fixed it no questions asked.

[JFettig]

I'm just waiting for the day they "outlaw" bumpfiring....

so... was there or wasn't there a modified or replaced trigger group? Maybe a M16 disconnector and selector to allow the hammer to ride the bolt and the 3rnd just happened to be the number of rounds the trigger was held for?

Jon

[Vlad]

I will admit that I had a similar problem with my AR. There were other people on the range and they had the same WTF look on their face as I did. When it happened, I called my smith and talked to him. I tried what he told me and the rifle still misbehaved. I pulled the rifle off the line and took the gun to another smith to fix the disconnector that was not doing its job correctly. Have not had any problems since.

[chunkstyle]

Actually, what this shows, more than anything, is that it's time to rewrite the law. Full auto should be just as legal as any other kind of weapon. NFA 34 must go.

[Widge]

The ATF didn't convict Mr Olofson, the Court did, in part(it seems) ably assisted by the defendant himself, or did everyone miss this part (presumably taken for the transcript):

Olofson acknowledged to agents that he knew how to convert semi-automatic rifles to machine guns, and agents later found conversion information and instructions on Olofson’s computers. Agents also found e-mail exchanges with third parties on Olofson’s computer wherein Olofson discussed machine guns and ways to avoid federal registration requirements for automatic weapons.

During the sentencing, the judge rejected the defense contention that the gun had merely malfunctioned and was not a machine gun, instead finding that Olofson knew the gun was a machine gun. The Court found that Olofson’s military service and the other evidence in the case suggested he was “incredibly familiar” with firearms, and rejected Olofson’s contention that he was unaware of the gun’s capability to fire automatically. “Mr. Olofson has, in this court’s view, shown he was ignoring the law and that he was doing so in part for financial gain.”

Whether you think it was right or wrong, Mr Olofson showed appallingly poor judgement.

The bone of contention appears to be that Mr Olofson said it was a malfunction and thus not a machine gun per se and the ATF said that in fact the weapon had been modified to allow it to be fired in 'full auto' mode. Unfortunately for Mr. Olofson, the court viewed and listened to the evidence that was presented by both sides and agreed with the prosecution.


(Yes, I have read the ass-achingly long thread on the other forum, and I happen to think Mr. Olofson is disingenuous at best, and a prodigious fool at worst.)

[Widge]

I would just add, that he was not convicted because the weapon malfunctioned, but because the evidence apparently showed, and the Court believed, that the rifle had been modified.

Thus, if your AR or Ruger 10/22 malfunctions, and slam fires or somehow shoots 3 or more rounds because of a defect it is still not a machine gun, unless you have modified it in some way to cause the slam fires or continuous fire.

The other thing is, and personally I think ((although I have no evidence of this) that this is where Mr. Olofson may have screwed the pooch, if you know your weapon slam fires a' la MG, and do nothing to have it fixed but in fact, brag about your 'non-NFA machine gun, ha ha', and then , after you attract official attention start bleating about it via e mail with your cronies, you may well end up in a similar position to the defendant. This is, of course, pure speculation on my part.

[JohninMinnesota]

SNIP

... you attract official attention start bleating about it via e mail with your cronies, you may well end up in a similar position to the defendant.

God is watching us... God is watching us... God is watching us.... from a distance....

[Widge]

SNIP

... you attract official attention start bleating about it via e mail with your cronies, you may well end up in a similar position to the defendant.

God is watching us... God is watching us... God is watching us.... from a distance....

You know what? I knew as soon as I hit 'post', someone would take that quote out of context and break out the tinfoil hats.

How about including the full line from the report which, far from showing that 'God is watching us', shows that the offending e mails were found during a search of the defendants house, when his computer was seized. The emails apparently were obtained lawfully, or they would not have been admissible in evidence.

Thus my full quote, formed after reading the various posts made before mine is:

if you know your weapon slam fires a' la MG, and do nothing to have it fixed but in fact, brag about your 'non-NFA machine gun, ha ha', and then , after you attract official attention start bleating about it via e mail with your cronies, you may well end up in a similar position to the defendant. This is, of course, pure speculation on my part.

Which is completely different from the truncated quote which implies that I was saying Mr. Olofson 's e mails were somehow read or intercepted by the big, bad, ATF.

Please do not 'spin' my words to promote something that was neither implied or suggested. If anyone thinks there was something underhanded or 'shadowy about the prosecution, please feel free to post about it (and you might well be correct, but the evidence for a conspiracy thus far is pretty flimsy), but use your own material to support your position, not an edited portion of mine.

Thank you.

[Stradawhovious]

From the original post

"Haanstad claimed the law does not exempt a malfunction. He claims that it states 'any weapon that shoots more than once without manual reloading, per function of the trigger is a machinegun.' To clarify when I was on the stand, I asked him, 'Are you saying if I take my Great Granddaddy's double barrel out and I pull one trigger and both barrels go off, it's a machinegun?' He went back to … 'any weapon that shoots…'" Savage said.

So this,

Thus, if your AR or Ruger 10/22 malfunctions, and slam fires or somehow shoots 3 or more rounds because of a defect it is still not a machine gun, unless you have modified it in some way to cause the slam fires or continuous fire.

unfortunately is not true. They would still convict based on a malfunction according to the original post.

[Fast351]

I would just add, that he was not convicted because the weapon malfunctioned, but because the evidence apparently showed, and the Court believed, that the rifle had been modified.

That is incorrect. He was charged with (and convicted of) "transferring an unregistered machine gun" not "manufacturing of a machine gun without a license".

This court case sets the precedence that any multi-fire malfunction turns your gun into a defacto machine gun, which is a really dangerous precedent.

Of course Mr. Olofson made some really poor choices that drew the ire of the BATFE, but the end result is still the same. If you have a gun that malfunctions and causes multiple discharges you are in fact in possession of a machine gun. Do not keep shooting it, and get it fixed.

The BATFE prosecuted this case because supposedly the rifle had been modified to slamfire or hammerfollow, but the charge was transferring which simply required showing that the gun fit the definition of a machine gun (fires more than round with a trigger press) whereas manufacturing would require showing who had actually done the modification.

[JohninMinnesota]

SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP

SNIP
Please do not 'spin' my words to promote something that was neither implied or suggested. If anyone thinks there was something underhanded or 'shadowy about the prosecution, please feel free to post about it (and you might well be correct, but the evidence for a conspiracy thus far is pretty flimsy), but use your own material to support your position, not an edited portion of mine.

Thank you.

Did you know that for many years now, the government has been monitoring all financial transactions over "x" amount? Did you know that all digital communications are subject to search and monitoring? If you think *anything* you are doing with your life is private, you better sure as hell think again.

I wasn't posting something about you... merely making an observation based upon the issue at hand. You are welcome! I don't need a tin foil hat, I know Rex Kwon Do!

[Widge]

SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIPSNIPPlease do not 'spin' my words to promote something that was neither implied or suggested. If anyone thinks there was something underhanded or 'shadowy about the prosecution, please feel free to post about it (and you might well be correct, but the evidence for a conspiracy thus far is pretty flimsy), but use your own material to support your position, not an edited portion of mine.Thank you.

Did you know that for many years now, the government has been monitoring all financial transactions over "x" amount?  Did you know that all digital communications are subject to search and monitoring?  If you think *anything* you are doing with your life is private, you better sure as hell think again.I wasn't posting something about you... merely making an observation based upon the issue at hand. You are welcome!  I don't need a tin foil hat, I know Rex Kwon Do!

Yes I did and I do. None of which was referenced in, or relevant to, the portion of my quote which you posted and used to suggest some kind of 'Big Brother' conspiracy. Nor was any thing of that nature alleged to have taken place during the investigation into Mr. Olofson by either the prosecution or defence.

Fast, although he was charged with transferring an 'unregistered machine gun' then why would the court in sentencing him say: 

During the sentencing, the judge rejected the defense contention that the gun had merely malfunctioned and was not a machine gun, instead finding that Olofson knew the gun was a machine gun. The Court found that Olofson’s military service and the other evidence in the case suggested he was “incredibly familiar” with firearms, and rejected Olofson’s contention that he was unaware of the gun’s capability to fire automatically. “Mr. Olofson has, in this court’s view, shown he was ignoring the law and that he was doing so in part for financial gain.”

if they did not intend it to have relevance to the fact that the court believed, based on the evidence, that he had either known it was defective and failed to have it repaired because it was more valuable in that state, or that he had somehow engineered the malfunction to again increase it's value?

Straw, I take your point (originally posted by HammAR) about what Mr. Olofson said concerning the malfunction, but is it not reasonable to expect him to say that? After all, that was his defense, and it was roundly rejected by the court.

I'm pretty sure this will go to appeal, so maybe we'll be able to glean some more information that way.

As it is, based on the information I have read, I still believe Mr. Olofson to be, at the very least a fool, and at the most, someone who seems to have got what he deserved.

[Stradawhovious]

I think that it is safe to say that if, in fact, this person was an a$$hat and modified to become full auto or illegally owned a full auto rifle then yes, he deserves to have the book thrown at him, but if it was in fact a malfunction then this is BS. i guess only time will tell. I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this.