http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/03/13/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn
Not sure if this has been posted, but its new to me!
Not sure if this has been posted, but its new to me!
AR weapons malfunction = jail?
- Thread starter furyfour
- Start date
armedtotheteeth
New member
What is shocking is that CNN is defending this guy!! I find it, as a veteran, very offensive that the government would do this do one of its soldiers! Probably what happened to the "machine gun" is a round cooked off in the chamber or a slam fire. He had after all shot 800 rounds that day. Which IMO is alot of shooting, specially for a 20 year old rifle. The ATF disgusts me on this case. This is obsurd. THE ATF has overstepped their bounds on this one.
There are several threads already running on this. There are so many opinions on this until I have given up on even trying to determine the facts of this case but it sure seems that most people, especially the media, are ignoring what little facts are available and replacing them with hyperbole opinions from every angle. Strange that CNN was supposedly one of the most hated news outlets in existence and couldn't present one decent fact correctly until this piece and all of a sudden they become a bastion of truth and justice.
DonR101395
New member
Just curious what facts they presented in this piece? This case makes my head hurt. I don't agree with NFA laws but follow them and then tards like this guy simply make it harder on those of us who take care to ensure the things we do is in accordance with the current law.
Seems that he(Olofson) knew that the weapons fired automatic in the third selector position and did nothing to fix it. According to testimony of one of the witnesses he even said he had done it intentionally at the range before and hadn't gotten caught. At least thats according to the witness. If thats true then I think his case is alot harder to rally behind than if it was a rifle that just started malfunctioning one day at the range.
IncendiumX
New member
What the hell?
Really?
Weak.
Really?
Weak.
Last edited:
There is no question that the gun is not a machine gun in the technical sense. It's an AR-15 with a worn/defective FCG, resulting in hammer follow/slamfires. It's only by luck that the gun has not blown up yet.
When the ATF tested it, the best they were able to get is a two or three round burst followed by the gun jamming. Even then they had to use soft primered ammo.
When the ATF tested it, the best they were able to get is a two or three round burst followed by the gun jamming. Even then they had to use soft primered ammo.
cannonballmount
New member
This is a very important thread!
I suspect they are really after the manufacturer and the poor guy convicted is but a pawn they are setting up to have an airtight case to sue those involved in making the weapon.
Weapons manufacturers better take note, and get involved.
I suspect they are really after the manufacturer and the poor guy convicted is but a pawn they are setting up to have an airtight case to sue those involved in making the weapon.
Weapons manufacturers better take note, and get involved.
My understanding is that he (Olofson) had modified it to work in the third position but could to get it to fire more than three round without jamming. When he loaned the gun to the fellow he told him not to use that position as he knew what would happen. The borrower used the third position anyway not once but several times and each time it fired three rounds and jammed. From what I can tell the whole argument is that he actually failed in trying to make it a true machine gun that would fire more than three rounds without jamming. That was the entire basis for his defense. That he failed in what he was trying to do. The BATF said since it could fire three rounds then it was a MG. The rest is BS on everyone's part and I can't rally behind someone just because they didn't accomplish what they tried to do.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Your suspicions are unfounded.
WildguaranteedAlaska