Northfield man possession of a machine gun

[ZeeC]

This sounds more like what is going on in Northfield rather then a malfunction.

According to the testimony of Kiernicki, Olofson's purpose for lending the gun was to sell it to Kiernicki. Kiernicki also testified Olofson knew about the third automatic firing mode, but that it jammed. The prosecution also provided evidence from Olofson's computer with proof of acquiring M-16 parts, which could be used to make an AR-15 automatic, and of Olofson's participation in a group that was described as "vigilante" according to U.S. Assistant Attorney Gergory Haanstad.

However the "vigilante" thing didn't help the guy

[Ghost]

This sounds more like what is going on in Northfield rather then a malfunction.

According to the testimony of Kiernicki, Olofson's purpose for lending the gun was to sell it to Kiernicki. Kiernicki also testified Olofson knew about the third automatic firing mode, but that it jammed. The prosecution also provided evidence from Olofson's computer with proof of acquiring M-16 parts, which could be used to make an AR-15 automatic, and of Olofson's participation in a group that was described as "vigilante" according to U.S. Assistant Attorney Gergory Haanstad.

However the "vigilante" thing didn't help the guy

Maybe that means he was a member here or ARFCOM?

[igofast]

This sounds more like what is going on in Northfield rather then a malfunction.

According to the testimony of Kiernicki, Olofson's purpose for lending the gun was to sell it to Kiernicki. Kiernicki also testified Olofson knew about the third automatic firing mode, but that it jammed. The prosecution also provided evidence from Olofson's computer with proof of acquiring M-16 parts, which could be used to make an AR-15 automatic, and of Olofson's participation in a group that was described as "vigilante" according to U.S. Assistant Attorney Gergory Haanstad.

However the "vigilante" thing didn't help the guy

My understanding is that it had a M-16 bolt carrier group - which probably 1/2 of AR15's have(and if you read the other thread are preferable to some). If you are to believe the testing procedures, they could not reproduce a Full Auto event until 'soft' primers were used(never a good idea in an AR because of the floating firing pin).

As always, I feel like I'm getting 1/2 of the story. If I am to believe the defense, it seems fairly straightforward. But if the guy was already under investigation, made stupid comments such as "yeah, it's full auto but it doesn't work right now", and/or had a history the Gov't may have used this opportunity to prosecute(not that this makes it right to do so).

[jshuberg]

It was a hammer follow malfunction. The hammer wasn't captured in the rearward position after being fired, and rode the bolt carrier forward. At around the point where the bolt goes into battery, the hammer comes forward and strikes the firing pin. The spring tension and distance the hammer falls prior to striking the firing pin is a fraction of its normal distance. Typically a hammer follow results in a light primer strike without detonation. It can occasionally fire an additional round or two if the primers are soft enough, and it can also result in an out of battery detonation if the hammer strikes the firing pin before the bolt is locked into battery. This results in a visit to the hospital to have pieces of gun surgically removed from your face.

This can happen for a number of reasons, but it was likely an incorrect part or combination of incorrect parts in the weapon. It could also be caused by a defect, wearing, tolerance stacking in a poorly built gun, etc.

Regardless of what caused the malfunction, the mechanism that allowed multiple rounds to be fired was a malfunction. My guess is he installed a 3 position selector so he could pretend the gun was a machine gun by having a selector that could go into the "auto" position. This interfered with the normal operation of the trigger group and caused the malfunction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MJY65]

I guess we can hope that the ATF and prosecutor are able to sort through the difference between a true malfunction and one that was deliberately created.

If not, what's a guy to do if you really do have a gun that doubles at the range? Grandpa's old double barrel lets go on both when you shoot at a pheasant? Assuming the ATF agent isn't lurking in the bushes waiting to pounce, do you take it to a gunsmith and hope he doesn't turn you in? Order a new part and quietly replace it? Throw the gun in the woods and run away?

I'm still looking for an example of a case where ATF went after a guy for a legitimately worn out part.

[Rip Van Winkle]

I followed the Olofson case fairly closely and I can assure everyone Olofson was not convicted because his rifle "malfunctioned". He was convicted because he modified his trigger group to fire full auto. He was also convicted because his buddy, who was caught firing olofson's rifle full auto (I don't believe for a second it was only one three shot burst), testified against him.

[Holland&Holland]

I followed the Olofson case fairly closely and I can assure everyone Olofson was not convicted because his rifle "malfunctioned". He was convicted because he modified his trigger group to fire full auto. He was also convicted because his buddy, who was caught firing olofson's rifle full auto (I don't believe for a second it was only one three shot burst), testified against him.

Well there ya go. Definitive proof.

[JJ]

I followed the Olofson case fairly closely and I can assure everyone Olofson was not convicted because his rifle "malfunctioned". He was convicted because he modified his trigger group to fire full auto. He was also convicted because his buddy, who was caught firing olofson's rifle full auto (I don't believe for a second it was only one three shot burst), testified against him.

If you actually read the legal brief from the case, this becomes apparent. Certain Pro-gun groups have painted a very rosy picture to make that story appear like a prosecution based on malfunction (and do some fundraising). Olofson installed M16 trigger parts in an attempt to circumvent Fed law.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1407580.html

[Holland&Holland]

I followed the Olofson case fairly closely and I can assure everyone Olofson was not convicted because his rifle "malfunctioned". He was convicted because he modified his trigger group to fire full auto. He was also convicted because his buddy, who was caught firing olofson's rifle full auto (I don't believe for a second it was only one three shot burst), testified against him.

If you actually read the legal brief from the case, this becomes apparent. Certain Pro-gun groups have painted a very rosy picture to make that story appear like a prosecution based on malfunction (and do some fundraising). Olofson installed M16 trigger parts in an attempt to circumvent Fed law.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1407580.html

And the infringement continues...

[george]

Keep in mind you don't even have to install the trigger group all you have to do is drill the holes for the auto sear in the receiver and your guilty of a felony.

[MJY65]

Keep in mind you don't even have to install the trigger group all you have to do is drill the holes for the auto sear in the receiver and your guilty of a felony.

What purpose would a guy have in drilling it if they weren't planning to install the AS? "Gee, the drill slipped when I was engraving my initials in the receiver and I ended up with these holes."

[jshuberg]

There are replica and retro builds people do where they want it to look as close to the original full auto as possible. Some manufacturers have actually engraved a little circle where the sear pin would be so that it looks as close as possible to their full-auto brother. I don't know if anyone has drilled a sear pin hole and has been charged for it, but it could be an innocent reason for someone doing it. However, BATFE considers the presence of a sear pin hole to be constructive intent to build a machine gun. Even if there's no sear to be found.

Modifying a trigger group cannot make an AR15 fire full-auto without a sear of some kind. Period. It can however cause a hammer follow malfunction, which under almost every circumstance results in a light primer strike without detonation. Even in the case above, BATFE concluded after examining the gun it was not a machine gun. They had to look at it a second time, and find ammo sensitive enough that a light primer strike would get it to fire. BATFE does not consider the presence of a full auto selector by itself to make the gun into a machine gun. You can buy them without any paperwork, and install them in a semi-auto firearm if that's what you want to do. There may be more to the story, but it was not and could not have been a fully automatic weapon without a sear.

If the guy *intentionally* caused a hammer follow malfunction in order to get it fire fire an additional round or two per trigger press, he's a moron. However, the purpose of the law is to require registration of "real" full autos, the theory being full autos pose a greater danger to the public. Not to imprison a person for a malfunctioning weapon capable of occasionally firing an extra round or two. This guy and his gun posed a danger to himself, but does not in any way increase the risk to the public the way they theorize an actual machine gun does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dorian]

So if a slide fire stock might be considered a "removable" trigger activator under MN law, would the same be true for a TAC-CON 3MR trigger that has an extremely short self resetting trigger that permits rapid fire? I've read that there is a learning curve to the TacCon and simply holding the trigger will not result multiple shots like an MG.

I'm also curious about the possibility of the TAC-CON 3MR trigger having this issue?

[Rip Van Winkle]

If the guy *intentionally* caused a hammer follow malfunction in order to get it fire fire an additional round or two per trigger press, he's a moron. However, the purpose of the law is to require registration of "real" full autos, the theory being full autos pose a greater danger to the public. Not to imprison a person for a malfunctioning weapon capable of occasionally firing an extra round or two. This guy and his gun posed a danger to himself, but does not in any way increase the risk to the public the way they theorize an actual machine gun does.

We can argue the morality or Constitutionality of the law, but until it's repealed or overturned it it what it is.

Olofson is an idiot who tried to beat the Feds on a technicality. He probably would have gotten a slap on the wrist If he hadn't made such an obnoxious a-hole of himself.

[JJ]

11/24/15