The Olofson Case - Merged Threads
- Thread starter Chris Phelps
- Start date
Chris Phelps
New member
haha Yeah, I have always been a really fast reader.
There are a lot of questions littering that thread about the legitimacy of the poster / defendant. Many people are claiming he is not being completely honest about any of it.
Who knows...
In any event, it is not like the story I had originally posted.
One note: I thought this was funny, but probably only the AR guys will get it. The claim that the bolt had been "Filed Down" to convert it to Full Auto. I actually laughed out loud when I read that one.
There are a lot of questions littering that thread about the legitimacy of the poster / defendant. Many people are claiming he is not being completely honest about any of it.
Who knows...
In any event, it is not like the story I had originally posted.
One note: I thought this was funny, but probably only the AR guys will get it. The claim that the bolt had been "Filed Down" to convert it to Full Auto. I actually laughed out loud when I read that one.
I am now in my 40's and I have seen a trend toward Federal law enforcement prosecuting people for questionable "crimes" such as this where the "intent" to commit a crime is non existent and is often fabricated in the minds of the feds.
Amazingly, juries often go along with the rogue prosecutors. I guess the fact that these rogue prosecutors are able to withhold evidence without fear of reprisal makes it easier for them to convince a jury. It sickens me to see our country going in this direction.
A word of warning about that, PT111: I know you didn't say you were seriously thinking about filing anything down, but please be aware that doing so can make the rifle dangerous to fire. Making a rifle full-auto by filing down a sear can allow the rifle to fire out of battery, which can lead to an explosion.PT111 said:
Maybe you already knew this, but I thought it wouldn't hurt to point it out.
Wildalaska
Moderator
care to share this trend? I assume you have studied the increase in the number of actually fabricated cases over the past 40 years.
really? How many examples can you provide of juries going along with rogue prosecutors?
really? Share...
After all, you are challenging the very precepts of the Federal Court system so you should have SOME factual analysis to give us
WildletusknowAlaska TM
Mr. James, toybox99615 and others:
The WND.com story quoted at the beginning of this discussion might have some problems, I hadn't really read it, matter of fact, while at one time I did read through WND, I haven't looked at it in some time.
Having said that, I wonder as to the following. Have either of you gentlemen, or anyone else here listened to the 10 Jan JPFO interview with Len Savage. The available audio, contained the information you mentioned, which seems to be missing from the WND article. BTW, the guardsman was convicted. If you go to the following link, http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/talkamerica.htm you will be able to listen to the audio, it runs for about 30 minutes, and I found it worth the time, others might too or not. I spoke with Aaron Zelman of JPFO this afternoon, and he indicated that a transcript of the interview might be up today, more likely tomorrow.
That's about all I can say for now. Listen to the interview, and or read the transcript. I just checked the link. The interview transcript is up now.
The WND.com story quoted at the beginning of this discussion might have some problems, I hadn't really read it, matter of fact, while at one time I did read through WND, I haven't looked at it in some time.
Having said that, I wonder as to the following. Have either of you gentlemen, or anyone else here listened to the 10 Jan JPFO interview with Len Savage. The available audio, contained the information you mentioned, which seems to be missing from the WND article. BTW, the guardsman was convicted. If you go to the following link, http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/talkamerica.htm you will be able to listen to the audio, it runs for about 30 minutes, and I found it worth the time, others might too or not. I spoke with Aaron Zelman of JPFO this afternoon, and he indicated that a transcript of the interview might be up today, more likely tomorrow.
That's about all I can say for now. Listen to the interview, and or read the transcript. I just checked the link. The interview transcript is up now.
Last edited:
WildAlaska:
When or if you get a chance, take a look at post# 29 (mine), Use the link provided, which will take you to the JPFO site, where you can
Listen to the interview and or read the transcript, either action will inform you of the accused having been convicted.
I believe that this fact will answer one of your questions. As to another point you raised, based on what I heard listening to the interview/reading the transcript, regarding the antics of the U.S. Attorney and the BATFE, one wonders as to whatever might have happened to DISCOVERY.
Also, regarding the malfunctioning of semi-automatic weapons, my own PERSONAL experience includes the following.
1. A personally owned Kimber Classic Custom Target doubled (fired multiple shots with a single actuation of the trigger) on two occasions during a period of approximately six years.
2. A 70 Series Colt Government Model Pistol (45ACP), having had what proved to be to fine a trigger job done on/to it, went FULL AUTOMATIC.I had it fixed, repaired with GI parts by a friend of mine, who set the trigger up to break at 4.25-4.50 #. That was about 30 years ago. No problems since.
3. While shooting a Leg Match, they needed an extra body and I was handy, at a military base in Virginia, a military armorer built Match 45 went full automatic when I dropped the slide, using the slide release, on a fresh magazine of Match Ammunition.
4. While shooting Rifle competition at Camp Perry, I personally saw an M-1 Rifle, a government rifle, go full automatic. The shooter ended up on his behind, slightly the worse for wear, though happily uninjured. The rifle survived too, as I recall.
Re the above, I guess that all and sundry were lucky, in that there seemed to be a dearth of ATF agents lurking about, the sort of people who have been known to bring all manner of strange, erroneous and phony charges, charges that sometimes end in people being convicted.
When or if you get a chance, take a look at post# 29 (mine), Use the link provided, which will take you to the JPFO site, where you can
Listen to the interview and or read the transcript, either action will inform you of the accused having been convicted.
I believe that this fact will answer one of your questions. As to another point you raised, based on what I heard listening to the interview/reading the transcript, regarding the antics of the U.S. Attorney and the BATFE, one wonders as to whatever might have happened to DISCOVERY.
Also, regarding the malfunctioning of semi-automatic weapons, my own PERSONAL experience includes the following.
1. A personally owned Kimber Classic Custom Target doubled (fired multiple shots with a single actuation of the trigger) on two occasions during a period of approximately six years.
2. A 70 Series Colt Government Model Pistol (45ACP), having had what proved to be to fine a trigger job done on/to it, went FULL AUTOMATIC.I had it fixed, repaired with GI parts by a friend of mine, who set the trigger up to break at 4.25-4.50 #. That was about 30 years ago. No problems since.
3. While shooting a Leg Match, they needed an extra body and I was handy, at a military base in Virginia, a military armorer built Match 45 went full automatic when I dropped the slide, using the slide release, on a fresh magazine of Match Ammunition.
4. While shooting Rifle competition at Camp Perry, I personally saw an M-1 Rifle, a government rifle, go full automatic. The shooter ended up on his behind, slightly the worse for wear, though happily uninjured. The rifle survived too, as I recall.
Re the above, I guess that all and sundry were lucky, in that there seemed to be a dearth of ATF agents lurking about, the sort of people who have been known to bring all manner of strange, erroneous and phony charges, charges that sometimes end in people being convicted.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Where is the indictment?
WildnojpfointerveiwsanindictmentpleaseAlaska TM
WildnojpfointerveiwsanindictmentpleaseAlaska TM
Wildalaska:
Another take the above discussed matter.
BTW, respecting what the trial judge could perhaps have done in response to whst seems to be the travesty the government made of Discovery could be covered in the following 4 words. Case dismissed, with prejudice. As to "where the indictment is" a question that some have asked, it might be contained in "documents" available at earlier provided link. In anby event, as I understand the issue, the accused has been convicted.
Following is a link to that "other take" above mentioned. http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-olofson-case.htm . You can read the matrerial or not, as you choose.
Another take the above discussed matter.
BTW, respecting what the trial judge could perhaps have done in response to whst seems to be the travesty the government made of Discovery could be covered in the following 4 words. Case dismissed, with prejudice. As to "where the indictment is" a question that some have asked, it might be contained in "documents" available at earlier provided link. In anby event, as I understand the issue, the accused has been convicted.
Following is a link to that "other take" above mentioned. http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-olofson-case.htm . You can read the matrerial or not, as you choose.
additional comment on U.S. v Olofson by L. Neil Smith
All:
Some sear by Mr. Smith's comments, others swear at them, fair enough I suppose. Some are put off by his writing style, others aren't. I submit that BEFORE jumping to conclusions re what he has to say, conclusions based on the comment of others, that you might want to take a moment to read what the guy has to say on this case, think about it, along with other information available, and then draw your own conclusions. His latest comments follow below, having appeared in a JPFO alert. There is the historical record of BATFE too.
US vs Olofson: A pseudolegal Case
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com
For Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The camera closes in.
The screen swells with the wizened, hateful visage, under its ludicrous English periwig, of George Jeffreys, the original "hanging judge" of the Bloody Assizes as he sentences the innocent Doctor Peter Blood, convicted of having treated a man wounded in a battle of the 1685 Monmouth Rebellion, to a lifetime of slavery in the British West Indies.
Nobody watching the 1935 movie "Captain Blood" was particularly surprised at the irrationality of the verdict or the harshness of the sentence. Judicial processes meant to bolster authority, often at the expense of justice and humanity, were a feature of the English court system, and one of many reasons -- as most individuals of my own and older generations were taught in school -- that Americans fought for independence.
Not so today. Now our children and our grandchildren are often told by a politically-corrected educational establishment that there was no good reason for the American Revolution, and that we'd all be better off if the colonials then had respected and cooperated with authority. As far as justice is concerned, they're told the humblest person, accused of a crime, can always count on getting "his day in court".
I'm sure that's just what young Kenyon Ballew, his family, and lawyers expected when they went to court seeking restitution because a violent gang of police and federal officers, for some reason disguised as hippies, smashed through his front door one summer evening in 1971 -- on a fraudulent plea-bargained tip from a newspaper boy they had arrested for burglary -- and shot at him more than a dozen times as he emerged naked from his bathtub, paralyzing him for the rest of his life.
The Ballew case may not have been the first instance of the new police "philosophy" of fascist thuggery, moronic incompetence, and brutal unconcern over "collateral damage" that has since flooded over this nation like a dirty tide, destroying whatever pretense was left that this is a free country, but it was the first many of us knew of, and nothing would ever be the same. A line of causality stretches taut and straight from Ballew's suburban Maryland home in 1971 to Mount Carmel on the rolling Texas plains in 1993 -- and continues on to this day.
All of this comes to mind because of a recent federal trial, the case of U.S. v. Olofson in Milwaukee Wisconsin, in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (instigators in both the Ballew and Branch Davidian atrocities) charged a National Guard Drill Instructor of "unlawful transfer of a machinegun" because, owing to a worn or broken part, it would sometimes -- very rarely, actually -- fire more than one round of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger.
This is not, in fact, any kind of illegal "enhancement", it is a dangerous malfunction. Len Savage, the expert I spoke with before I started this article tells me that when such a malfunction occurs, the particular weapon involved fires at three times the rate considered safe.
Olofson, it appears, was asked by a Robert Kiernicki to teach him to shoot. Olofson did, and even let Kiernicki take "his oldest AR-15" -- a semiautomatic version of our current military rifle the M-16 -- to a public range and practice. On Kiernicki's third time at the range, after firing 120 rounds, the rifle sputtered three times and jammed.
Law enforcement people present on the range swooped in, and in due course, Olofson was arrested, charged, and has now been convicted of a gun "crime" he never intended to commit or even knew he had committed, one that happened when he was miles away and someone else pulled the trigger.
The rifle in question was sent to the BATFE Firearm Technology Branch (FTB), who examined and test fired the weapon and declared it "just a rifle". Special Agent in Charge Jody Keeku asked FTB to re-test the firearm, this time using soft-primered commercial ammunition.
The FTB, which has no standardized testing procedures -- in fact, no written procedures at all for testing firearms -- tried again, this time getting the desired results. BATFE, with a self-admitted fifty percent error rate, then pursued an indictment against Olofson and paid Kiernicki "an undisclosed amount of money" to testify against him.
At the same time Olofson was being charged with unlawful transfer, because his rifle malfunctioned, and apparently had some M-16 parts (not the parts that would make it a machinegun) the BATFE removed another "machinegun" from its registry of such weapons because they deemed it to be an AR-15 with M-16 parts, but not a machinegun. Len can produce the documents to substantiate this extremely convenient contradiction.
Hear Len being interviewed on JPFO's podcast, Talkin' to America and see some of the legal documents associated with this case. Click on over to http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/talkamerica.htm and then proceed to http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/olofson-vs-us.htm.
Be aware, however the court never had access to this information. When Olofson's attorneys requested that the court compel BATFE to produce these and other documents proving Olofson's innocence, BATFE's Chief Counsel's Office loftily informed the court that the documents involved contained "tax information" -- namely, a $200 federal excise tax stamp -- and that the court was therefore prohibited from seeing them.
All such documents -- even a BATFE letter to the manufacturer of Olofson's rifle mandating a safety recall in 1986 (due to its going "full auto" if it malfunctioned) -- were kept secret from the judge in the case, Charles N. Clevert, and the rest of the court. BATFE's Chief Counsel told Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory J. Haanstad, who passed it along: "The Court will have take our word that the documents in question contain tax information, and contain no exculpatory evidence".
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". When Len, acting as a defense expert, took the stand, he asked, "Are you saying if I take my great-granddaddy's double barrel shotgun out and pull one trigger, and both barrels go off, it's a machinegun?". Haanstad cited the law (U.S. Code, Section 5845), restating that "any weapon that shoots ... "
If your semiauto rifle breaks, you are now subject to federal prosecution. Even more ironic, those in the sporting culture, who have derided so-called "black guns" and "assault rifles" for so long, now face a real possibility of their expensive double shotguns being seized, and of possible prosecution, if BATFE's no-standards laboratory -- which has no procedures in writing and does all of its testing in secret -- can make it fire more than once with a single pull of the trigger. If there is information proving their innocence, BATFE can always claim it's tax information, and prevent both judge and jury from considering it.
Len and I differ on one central point in this mess, gun expert though he is. He is a tough, decent, bright, and courageous gentleman, and I have no desire at all to argue with him in public. He believes that the judge in this case conducted himself properly and points out that the man even chastized the federal prosecutors on at least one occasion because they had attempted to deceive him and the defense attorneys.
This is not a new thing. At one of the legal proceedings against Kenyon Ballew, back in the 70s, the prosecution brought in "evidence" of Ballew's "criminality" consisting of a can of black pistol powder which they claimed he was going to use to make grenades. In fact, he used it to load his only handgun, a replica of an 1847 Colt Walker revolver.
But it wasn't enough simply to produce the can. They brought in at the center of a long, long plank, its ends supported by a pair of theatrically nervous individuals acting as though what it held was nitroglycerin.
BATFE's conduct at the Olofson trial was subtler, but just as criminally misleading. What the judge should have said is, "You will tell your agency to produce those documents immediately, or I will have you locked up until they do. Bailiff!" The fact that he didn't say that makes him a bad judge, a weak judge, and anticonstitutional judge.
BATFE's very existence is a violation of the highest law of the land, in and of itself. How can this sort of stupendously outrageous crime go on for decade after decade? Answer: who signs a judge's paycheck?
BATFE drifts, utterly rudderless, without underlying principles, precisely like the entire United States government does today. The criminally totalitarian mind-set that permitted the creation of this agency in the first place -- despite the clear language of the Bill of Rights -- encourages wars to be waged without any legal declaration by Congress, and kidnapping and torture to become working policies of what was once supposed to be the freest country on the face of the Earth.
It does so because it suits those who profit, in terms of power and privilege or other ill-gotten gains, from such a moral and legal vacuum.
All:
Some sear by Mr. Smith's comments, others swear at them, fair enough I suppose. Some are put off by his writing style, others aren't. I submit that BEFORE jumping to conclusions re what he has to say, conclusions based on the comment of others, that you might want to take a moment to read what the guy has to say on this case, think about it, along with other information available, and then draw your own conclusions. His latest comments follow below, having appeared in a JPFO alert. There is the historical record of BATFE too.
US vs Olofson: A pseudolegal Case
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com
For Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://www.jpfo.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The camera closes in.
The screen swells with the wizened, hateful visage, under its ludicrous English periwig, of George Jeffreys, the original "hanging judge" of the Bloody Assizes as he sentences the innocent Doctor Peter Blood, convicted of having treated a man wounded in a battle of the 1685 Monmouth Rebellion, to a lifetime of slavery in the British West Indies.
Nobody watching the 1935 movie "Captain Blood" was particularly surprised at the irrationality of the verdict or the harshness of the sentence. Judicial processes meant to bolster authority, often at the expense of justice and humanity, were a feature of the English court system, and one of many reasons -- as most individuals of my own and older generations were taught in school -- that Americans fought for independence.
Not so today. Now our children and our grandchildren are often told by a politically-corrected educational establishment that there was no good reason for the American Revolution, and that we'd all be better off if the colonials then had respected and cooperated with authority. As far as justice is concerned, they're told the humblest person, accused of a crime, can always count on getting "his day in court".
I'm sure that's just what young Kenyon Ballew, his family, and lawyers expected when they went to court seeking restitution because a violent gang of police and federal officers, for some reason disguised as hippies, smashed through his front door one summer evening in 1971 -- on a fraudulent plea-bargained tip from a newspaper boy they had arrested for burglary -- and shot at him more than a dozen times as he emerged naked from his bathtub, paralyzing him for the rest of his life.
The Ballew case may not have been the first instance of the new police "philosophy" of fascist thuggery, moronic incompetence, and brutal unconcern over "collateral damage" that has since flooded over this nation like a dirty tide, destroying whatever pretense was left that this is a free country, but it was the first many of us knew of, and nothing would ever be the same. A line of causality stretches taut and straight from Ballew's suburban Maryland home in 1971 to Mount Carmel on the rolling Texas plains in 1993 -- and continues on to this day.
All of this comes to mind because of a recent federal trial, the case of U.S. v. Olofson in Milwaukee Wisconsin, in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (instigators in both the Ballew and Branch Davidian atrocities) charged a National Guard Drill Instructor of "unlawful transfer of a machinegun" because, owing to a worn or broken part, it would sometimes -- very rarely, actually -- fire more than one round of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger.
This is not, in fact, any kind of illegal "enhancement", it is a dangerous malfunction. Len Savage, the expert I spoke with before I started this article tells me that when such a malfunction occurs, the particular weapon involved fires at three times the rate considered safe.
Olofson, it appears, was asked by a Robert Kiernicki to teach him to shoot. Olofson did, and even let Kiernicki take "his oldest AR-15" -- a semiautomatic version of our current military rifle the M-16 -- to a public range and practice. On Kiernicki's third time at the range, after firing 120 rounds, the rifle sputtered three times and jammed.
Law enforcement people present on the range swooped in, and in due course, Olofson was arrested, charged, and has now been convicted of a gun "crime" he never intended to commit or even knew he had committed, one that happened when he was miles away and someone else pulled the trigger.
The rifle in question was sent to the BATFE Firearm Technology Branch (FTB), who examined and test fired the weapon and declared it "just a rifle". Special Agent in Charge Jody Keeku asked FTB to re-test the firearm, this time using soft-primered commercial ammunition.
The FTB, which has no standardized testing procedures -- in fact, no written procedures at all for testing firearms -- tried again, this time getting the desired results. BATFE, with a self-admitted fifty percent error rate, then pursued an indictment against Olofson and paid Kiernicki "an undisclosed amount of money" to testify against him.
At the same time Olofson was being charged with unlawful transfer, because his rifle malfunctioned, and apparently had some M-16 parts (not the parts that would make it a machinegun) the BATFE removed another "machinegun" from its registry of such weapons because they deemed it to be an AR-15 with M-16 parts, but not a machinegun. Len can produce the documents to substantiate this extremely convenient contradiction.
Hear Len being interviewed on JPFO's podcast, Talkin' to America and see some of the legal documents associated with this case. Click on over to http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/talkamerica.htm and then proceed to http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/olofson-vs-us.htm.
Be aware, however the court never had access to this information. When Olofson's attorneys requested that the court compel BATFE to produce these and other documents proving Olofson's innocence, BATFE's Chief Counsel's Office loftily informed the court that the documents involved contained "tax information" -- namely, a $200 federal excise tax stamp -- and that the court was therefore prohibited from seeing them.
All such documents -- even a BATFE letter to the manufacturer of Olofson's rifle mandating a safety recall in 1986 (due to its going "full auto" if it malfunctioned) -- were kept secret from the judge in the case, Charles N. Clevert, and the rest of the court. BATFE's Chief Counsel told Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory J. Haanstad, who passed it along: "The Court will have take our word that the documents in question contain tax information, and contain no exculpatory evidence".
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". When Len, acting as a defense expert, took the stand, he asked, "Are you saying if I take my great-granddaddy's double barrel shotgun out and pull one trigger, and both barrels go off, it's a machinegun?". Haanstad cited the law (U.S. Code, Section 5845), restating that "any weapon that shoots ... "
If your semiauto rifle breaks, you are now subject to federal prosecution. Even more ironic, those in the sporting culture, who have derided so-called "black guns" and "assault rifles" for so long, now face a real possibility of their expensive double shotguns being seized, and of possible prosecution, if BATFE's no-standards laboratory -- which has no procedures in writing and does all of its testing in secret -- can make it fire more than once with a single pull of the trigger. If there is information proving their innocence, BATFE can always claim it's tax information, and prevent both judge and jury from considering it.
Len and I differ on one central point in this mess, gun expert though he is. He is a tough, decent, bright, and courageous gentleman, and I have no desire at all to argue with him in public. He believes that the judge in this case conducted himself properly and points out that the man even chastized the federal prosecutors on at least one occasion because they had attempted to deceive him and the defense attorneys.
This is not a new thing. At one of the legal proceedings against Kenyon Ballew, back in the 70s, the prosecution brought in "evidence" of Ballew's "criminality" consisting of a can of black pistol powder which they claimed he was going to use to make grenades. In fact, he used it to load his only handgun, a replica of an 1847 Colt Walker revolver.
But it wasn't enough simply to produce the can. They brought in at the center of a long, long plank, its ends supported by a pair of theatrically nervous individuals acting as though what it held was nitroglycerin.
BATFE's conduct at the Olofson trial was subtler, but just as criminally misleading. What the judge should have said is, "You will tell your agency to produce those documents immediately, or I will have you locked up until they do. Bailiff!" The fact that he didn't say that makes him a bad judge, a weak judge, and anticonstitutional judge.
BATFE's very existence is a violation of the highest law of the land, in and of itself. How can this sort of stupendously outrageous crime go on for decade after decade? Answer: who signs a judge's paycheck?
BATFE drifts, utterly rudderless, without underlying principles, precisely like the entire United States government does today. The criminally totalitarian mind-set that permitted the creation of this agency in the first place -- despite the clear language of the Bill of Rights -- encourages wars to be waged without any legal declaration by Congress, and kidnapping and torture to become working policies of what was once supposed to be the freest country on the face of the Earth.
It does so because it suits those who profit, in terms of power and privilege or other ill-gotten gains, from such a moral and legal vacuum.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Posting all the screeching is wonderful. Every criminal who is convicted has a record of the case SOMEWHERE......
Where is the indictment? No where on the cited website that I can find.
WildandseepsAlaska TM
PS...every convicted criminal whines...some are smart enough to find some agenda driven screechers to whine for them...Mumia anyone?
Where is the indictment? No where on the cited website that I can find.
WildandseepsAlaska TM
PS...every convicted criminal whines...some are smart enough to find some agenda driven screechers to whine for them...Mumia anyone?
toybox99615
New member
Credability
The original article that lead to this thread began this conflict of opinions as to what happened if anything. Writers who originally publish stories on-line or in print that lead us to believe the story have a responsibility. As in this supposed case the writer had a responsibility to provide credibility within their story. When an author relies on the readers to either accept his writing at face value they open themselves to being suspect as to the accuracy of their writings. The first posting relied on the expectation that the poster expected the publish story to be true.
If a reader has to further rely on a series of individuals to do extensive research, as done by some posters here, to determine the validity of the story the story is flawed and void of credibility.
In the synopsis of what has been posted here regarding this story you will find the assertions that it was multiple firearms that were modified to provide full automatic fire. Modified by a person who previously sold multiple copies of the modified rifle. However that stands in the face of those who profess the BATF had noting better to do than fabricate the entire incident just to persecute a law abiding citizen. Two rather differing opinions on what if anything really happened.
I'll stand on my original convictions that the original posting was based on a story on WDN that lacks credibility.
The original article that lead to this thread began this conflict of opinions as to what happened if anything. Writers who originally publish stories on-line or in print that lead us to believe the story have a responsibility. As in this supposed case the writer had a responsibility to provide credibility within their story. When an author relies on the readers to either accept his writing at face value they open themselves to being suspect as to the accuracy of their writings. The first posting relied on the expectation that the poster expected the publish story to be true.
If a reader has to further rely on a series of individuals to do extensive research, as done by some posters here, to determine the validity of the story the story is flawed and void of credibility.
In the synopsis of what has been posted here regarding this story you will find the assertions that it was multiple firearms that were modified to provide full automatic fire. Modified by a person who previously sold multiple copies of the modified rifle. However that stands in the face of those who profess the BATF had noting better to do than fabricate the entire incident just to persecute a law abiding citizen. Two rather differing opinions on what if anything really happened.
I'll stand on my original convictions that the original posting was based on a story on WDN that lacks credibility.
DonR101395
New member
Reader's Digest(tm) version:
Knucklehead #1 illegally converts rifle to 3 round burst. He then loans it to knucklehead #2 who he barely knows and tells him not to use third position. Knucklehead #2 goes to range and curiosity gets the best of him and he tries position #3 and is questioned about it. Knucklehead #1 proves himself not too bright by attempting to retrieve his illegal weapon from the police and tells them that is nothing compared to his other guns. He is now a convicted knucklehead.
No I don't agree with the law, but this guy is just stupid.
Knucklehead #1 illegally converts rifle to 3 round burst. He then loans it to knucklehead #2 who he barely knows and tells him not to use third position. Knucklehead #2 goes to range and curiosity gets the best of him and he tries position #3 and is questioned about it. Knucklehead #1 proves himself not too bright by attempting to retrieve his illegal weapon from the police and tells them that is nothing compared to his other guns. He is now a convicted knucklehead.
No I don't agree with the law, but this guy is just stupid.
Where is the indictment? No where on the cited website that I can find.
The above is excerpted from Wildalaska's last post, a repeat of a question he has asked earlier.
I spoke with a lady as U.S. District Court in Milwaukee earlier today, seeking direction toward the indictment. She checked, telling me that the indictment was a single page, and that she would e-mail me a copy today. Same has not arrived in my in box yet, perhaps later. In any case, since wildalaska has twice asked about it, when it arrives, I will post it. I find that I'm curious as to exactly is says, though I do not see where that would amount to all that much as Olofson's trial ended in a conviction, according to JPFO. Appeals may be taken, but that is another matter.
The above is excerpted from Wildalaska's last post, a repeat of a question he has asked earlier.
I spoke with a lady as U.S. District Court in Milwaukee earlier today, seeking direction toward the indictment. She checked, telling me that the indictment was a single page, and that she would e-mail me a copy today. Same has not arrived in my in box yet, perhaps later. In any case, since wildalaska has twice asked about it, when it arrives, I will post it. I find that I'm curious as to exactly is says, though I do not see where that would amount to all that much as Olofson's trial ended in a conviction, according to JPFO. Appeals may be taken, but that is another matter.
LoneStranger
New member
WildAlaska, I looked and what my non-legal mind came up with was a case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, United States v David R. Olofson, Case #06-CR 320.
I did not copy the .pdf file that I copied that info from but it was at the JPFO site.
Does that give you some facts to the case so that you can further comment?
I did not copy the .pdf file that I copied that info from but it was at the JPFO site.
Does that give you some facts to the case so that you can further comment?
Wildalaska
Moderator
Ok..now they have the indictment up. I read the ATF reports.
The whining and sniveling notwithstanding, the only folks who had the opportunity to properly evaluate the credibility of the witnesess was the jury. I can only assume that all of the "errors" alluded to by the article were raised by the defense before the jury and rejected as not being credible, including but not limited to the allegation that the witness here was biased, prejudiced and "paid", that the ATF testing procedures were insufficient etc...
If asssuming as the article suggests, the USA failed to provide exculpatory evidence as required by Brady and the US atty Guidelines then that may call for a new trial. Until then, attacking the jury verdict is nothing more than the usual agenda driven whinging. Call me when the case is reversed....
Legalese aside, read the witnesses statements carefully. Use common sense and get back to me as to whether the excuses of the defendant make any sense at all, especially that BS about the recall 25 years ago.....
WildpicksomethingbetterAlaska ™
PS Kudos to DonR101395 for getting to the bottom of this....stupidity should be a crime.
I have been handling AR 15s since the 70s. I have buillt em. I have built them full auto (legally). If that selector moves to the burst position, its because thats the way it was assembled with parts that shouldnt be in there.. This jamoke knew exactly what he was doing
The whining and sniveling notwithstanding, the only folks who had the opportunity to properly evaluate the credibility of the witnesess was the jury. I can only assume that all of the "errors" alluded to by the article were raised by the defense before the jury and rejected as not being credible, including but not limited to the allegation that the witness here was biased, prejudiced and "paid", that the ATF testing procedures were insufficient etc...
If asssuming as the article suggests, the USA failed to provide exculpatory evidence as required by Brady and the US atty Guidelines then that may call for a new trial. Until then, attacking the jury verdict is nothing more than the usual agenda driven whinging. Call me when the case is reversed....
Legalese aside, read the witnesses statements carefully. Use common sense and get back to me as to whether the excuses of the defendant make any sense at all, especially that BS about the recall 25 years ago.....
WildpicksomethingbetterAlaska ™
PS Kudos to DonR101395 for getting to the bottom of this....stupidity should be a crime.
I have been handling AR 15s since the 70s. I have buillt em. I have built them full auto (legally). If that selector moves to the burst position, its because thats the way it was assembled with parts that shouldnt be in there.. This jamoke knew exactly what he was doing
LoneStranger writes:
WildAlaska, I looked and what my non-legal mind came up with was a case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, United States v David R. Olofson, Case #06-CR 320.
I did not copy the .pdf file that I copied that info from but it was at the JPFO site.
Does that give you some facts to the case so that you can further comment?
------------------
Do I take your comment correctly, that is that you found somewhere on the JPFO site, the indictment in Olofson v. U.S. which Wildalasks has, a couple of times, asked for? I just looked there, and didn't find same.
In any event, yesterdady, I spoke with a ladfy at U.S. District Court in Milwaukee re this case, asking for the indictment. She promised to e-mail it to me yesterday. As of noon today, it hadn't arrived, so I called again. She told me that she had mailed it to me yesterday, as they were having e-mail problems.
When it arrives, and I can scan it, I will make certain to post it, for it appears that at least a couple of people might be interested in reading same. It's not long, the lady I spoke with said it was a single page.
WildAlaska, I looked and what my non-legal mind came up with was a case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, United States v David R. Olofson, Case #06-CR 320.
I did not copy the .pdf file that I copied that info from but it was at the JPFO site.
Does that give you some facts to the case so that you can further comment?
------------------
Do I take your comment correctly, that is that you found somewhere on the JPFO site, the indictment in Olofson v. U.S. which Wildalasks has, a couple of times, asked for? I just looked there, and didn't find same.
In any event, yesterdady, I spoke with a ladfy at U.S. District Court in Milwaukee re this case, asking for the indictment. She promised to e-mail it to me yesterday. As of noon today, it hadn't arrived, so I called again. She told me that she had mailed it to me yesterday, as they were having e-mail problems.
When it arrives, and I can scan it, I will make certain to post it, for it appears that at least a couple of people might be interested in reading same. It's not long, the lady I spoke with said it was a single page.