|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Open Carry Brigade > News & Political Alerts > Lou Dobbs Update on US v. Olofson
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Open Carry Brigade > News & Political Alerts > Lou Dobbs Update on US v. Olofson
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Guess what was on last night. I didn’t know they had anything planned. A lot more to this, I'm just gaged on it right now. You will flip when it comes out what they are trying to say. Think you as a gun owner are not at risk yet? You will change your mind soon. DOBBS: Every time we can smell the chamber of commerce, it makes me kind of get committed. You know what I mean? An update now on a story we first reported to you last month. LOU DOBBS TONIGHT has now learned the government is seeking an even tougher sentence than we originally expected against Army veteran and reservist David Olofson of Wisconsin. Speaking of cases difficult to understand, try this on for size. Olofson was convicted of, "transferring a machine gun" after his rifle misfired at a shooting range. The government is seeking a sentence of three-and-a-half to four years against Olofson. This Army veteran, a man with an otherwise absolutely clean record and a wife and three children. His sentence is scheduled for May 8. Now we don't know what's going on. We've been reporting on it. Bill Tucker has been out to -- to meet with Olofson or report on the story. Now the National Rifle Association's civil rights defense fund said it has this case under review. We'll, of course, keep you informed on this incredible story. Bill Tucker will be amongst those going out to Wisconsin to find out what is going on in that state. It is really an incredible story. |
|||||||||
|
nitrovic Regular Member 
|
Wow, that's crazy. I'm glad at least Dobbs is covering it. Go figure the liberal media isn't on it. I'm shocked Oreilly hasn't gotten it yet. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
nitrovic wrote: I'm shocked Oreilly hasn't gotten it yet. Never know. Maybe I'll continue to get lucky. |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member 
|
I think that the case is a real signpost on the road to tyranny. If we put aside the Second Amendment arguments and look at the Eighth Amendment we find the cruel and unusual punishment clause. Owning a machine gun is not against the law and the Federal Government does not have the authority to forbid said ownership. Federal machine gun regulation therefore relies upon a tax scheme. The unpaid tax upon the "machine gun" is $200.00. This level of "crime", failure to pay a small tax, does not warrant multiple years in jail. It is cruel and unusual punishment. |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member 
|
Thundar wrote: I think that the case is a real signpost on the road to tyranny. If we put aside the Second Amendment arguments and look at the Eighth Amendment we find the cruel and unusual punishment clause. Owning a machine gun is not against the law and the Federal Government does not have the authority to forbid said ownership. Federal machine gun regulation therefore relies upon a tax scheme. The unpaid tax upon the "machine gun" is $200.00. This level of "crime", failure to pay a small tax, does not warrant multiple years in jail. It is cruel and unusual punishment. I'll admit that I was so caught up in the 2nd amendment violation that I didn't think of the 8th. So yes, a lack of a tax stamp should be a summary offense payable by a small fine, if I'm reading you correctly. |
|||||||||
|
ama-gi Regular Member 
|
nitrovic wrote: Wow, that's crazy. I'm glad at least Dobbs is covering it. Go figure the liberal media isn't on it. I'm shocked Oreilly hasn't gotten it yet. He's too busy doing investigative specials into Girls Gone Wild. "Because you need to know."  |
|||||||||
|
nitrovic Regular Member
|
ama-gi wrote: nitrovic wrote:Wow, that's crazy. I'm glad at least Dobbs is covering it. Go figure the liberal media isn't on it. I'm shocked Oreilly hasn't gotten it yet. Yeah, I don't get that either. I agree with his tough stance on the child protection laws, but girls gone wild? If those little tramps want to sign the release form saying their 18, then have at it. |
|||||||||
|
ama-gi Regular Member
|
nitrovic wrote: ama-gi wrote:nitrovic wrote:Wow, that's crazy. I'm glad at least Dobbs is covering it. Go figure the liberal media isn't on it. I'm shocked Oreilly hasn't gotten it yet. It's just trash TV. That's all O'Reilly is. He's not intelligent and can't defend his ideas with any kind of reason or logic. Anyway, I'm glad Dobbs is covering this story. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
Let the feds have their fun. Let them get a conviction. Let them imprison Olofson under these circumstances. Wouldn't they look foolish if some person/persons decide to spring him? |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Let the feds have their fun. Let them get a conviction. Let them imprison Olofson under these circumstances. Especially if the liberators used bolt-action hunting rifles. Or better yet, black powder. Hah! Take that, ATF! *quietly resumes loading AK-47 mags* |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member
|
imperialism2024 wrote: mark edward marchiafava wrote:Let the feds have their fun. Let them get a conviction. Let them imprison Olofson under these circumstances. These sort of posts are amusing, but not helpful. When taken out of context they help to label us as gun "nuts" and anti-government. Not saying that is right, but just the reality of it. The reality of the case is that the BATFE is trying to railroad a citizen and set a legal precedent that would make any citizen that possesses a misfiring semi automatic firearm a felon. No flame please. I am not saying that the defendant is completely innocent, as I was not at the trial. The expert testimony about testing by BATFE without testing criteria = railroad. The legal standard for machine gun proposed by BATFE in this case = misfiring Ruger 10/22 means you are a felon. The BATFE needs to be put back in their box or better yet disbanded. |
|||||||||
|
mark edward marchiafava Regular Member
|
Just as there are "nuts" in any area of work and play, there are gun nuts. That doesn't mean the person is in need of commitment (stand down, East Baton Rouge sheriff's office), it merely means a person is passionate about something. Yes, the BATFEXYZ IS trying to set a precedent. Maybe history is about to set another precedent. Disband the BATFEXYZ? Even the allegedly "great" Gipper called for their demise. Have you seen that happen? NO? Why not? Do you, or anyone else, think the thugs at the BATFEXYZ are going to get back in their box? Or go to the house, voluntarily? If anyone believes that, I predict all three of the current stooges running for the presidency are going to drop out and GIVE Ron Paul a free pass. |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
Thundar wrote: imperialism2024 wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Let the feds have their fun. Let them get a conviction. Let them imprison Olofson under these circumstances. Whoops  Anyhow, I understand what you're saying. Over the weekend, there was a guy at my range trying to get his AK to bump-fire, and I made sure to warn him about this case... If the BATFE has their way here, it would be very easy for them to make a felon out of most people firing semi-auto weapons. The easy answer, though, is to repeal the NFA and all other laws at the national level prohibiting cetain types of guns. Then it wouldn't matter if your semi-auto misfires or not. And congrats, there's no longer a purpose for the BATFE as its other dysfunctions are or can be covered by state agencies. |
|||||||||
|
unreconstructed1 Regular Member 
|
imperialism2024 wrote: Whoops This is where the problem lies. The FED has attempted to unconstitutionally grab every little shred of authority that it can. I am a strict constitutionalist, personally. I believe taht teh FED should follow the constitution rather than interpet it. While we will never get a ruling form teh Supreme Court, the Federal Court, the state court, teh county court, the peoples court, opr from Judge Judy saying so, a little more than 60% of teh beaurocracy of teh FED is unconstitutional. ammendment 10 of the Constitution reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " Essentially, what this means is that any power that the FED currently claims should be listed in the Constitution. While I could ramble of a pretty impressive list of quite unconstitutional agencies, that is irrelevant for teh topic at hand. what is relevant is the direct violation of teh 2nd ammendment by teh mere existence of teh BATFE. The 2nd tells us that the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. until such time that the SC should decide to descredit themselves by throwing out the well known and respected actual meaning of the ammendment in favor of a modern "interpetation", then the fact still remains that NFA weapons, while heavily regulated, are still perfectly legal to own. Due to that fact, NFA laws are written as TAX CODE (title 26 USC), and should be enforced as such. If my understanding is correct, the ATF is under the authority of teh Department of Justice, while every other tax agency is under teh department of the treasury. If someone is convicted of a tax code violation, are they not first given the choice to pay the back taxes, and then imprisoned if they then refuse? When was Mr. Olofson given that choice? The ATF is not only unconstitutional, and a danger to the very essence of liberty in these United States, they are the realization of the founders worst fear. the fear that the republic that they created "Of the people, for the people, and by teh people", would become just as bad as teh Monarchy they left behind. "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery." ~Thomas Jefferson |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 06-CR-320 DAVID R. OLOFSON, Defendant. GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL Background On December 5, 2006, a grand jury in the Eastern District of Wisconsin returned an indictment charging David R. Olofson with transferring a machine gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922( o) and 924(a)(2). He went to trial and, on January 8, 2008, was convicted.Olofson now has filed a motion for judgment of acquittal. For the reasons set forth below, Olofson’s motion should be denied. Argument I. The evidence presented at trial clearly supports a rational finding that each element of the offense was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Olofson contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction. A defendant making such a claim faces a daunting challenge. United States v.Suggs , 374 F.3d 508, 518 (7th Cir. 2004); United States v. Brown, 328 F.3d 352, 355 (7th Cir.Case 2:06-cr-00320-CNC Filed 03/13/2008 Page 1 of 6 Document 80 2 2003). The issue to be addressed by the court is whether the evidence presented at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, could support a rational juror in finding beyond a reasonable doubt each essential element of the offense charged. UnitedStates v. Gougis , 432 F.3d 735, 743-44 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. George, 363 F.3d 666, 674(7 th Cir. 2004). In making this determination, the court is not to re-weigh the evidence ormake credibility determinations. Brown, 328 F.3d at 355. Rather, the court is simply toassess the trial record to determine whether it contains evidence from which a reasonable juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Graham, 315 F.3d 777, 781(7 th Cir. 2003).Olofson was charged with transferring a machine gun. To prove that Olofson committed the offense, the government was required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that Olofson knowingly transferred a machine gun; and (2) that Olofson knew, or was aware of, the essential characteristics of the firearm that made it a machine gun. SeeUnited States v. McGiffen , 267 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2001); Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions- Criminal , instruction 34.8, p. 216.A. The evidence at trial clearly supports a rational finding that the firearm in question was a machinegun. Olofson argues that, because the statute is written in the present tense, a firearm qualifies as a machinegun only if it always fires automatically and only if it fires automatically regardless of the type of ammunition used. Olofson’s interpretation does not flow from a reading of the plain language of § 922( o). Rather, his interpretation engrafts additional elements onto the statute, which byCase 2:06-cr-00320-CNC Filed 03/13/2008 Page 2 of 6 Document 80 1 In his motion, Olofson argues only that his firearm was not a “machinegun” under § 922(o).He makes no argument regarding his knowledge of the firearm firing more than one round with a single function of the trigger. In any event, again, the record contains ample evidence that Olofson had such knowledge. For example, Robert Kiernicki testified that Olofson made comments to him – both before and after law enforcement officers seized Olofson’s firearm – acknowledging that Olofson had himself fired the gun automatically in the past. Moreover, Firearms Technology Officer (FTO) Max Kingery testified that Olofson’s firearm fired automatically because, although it was a semiautomatic AR-15, it had M-16 fire control components installed in it. Kingery also testified that the particular M-16 components – the trigger; the selector; the hammer; and the disconnector – in Olofson’s firearm were not installed by the manufacturer. Someone had to have modified the firearm to include those four components. And e-mails and other documents on Olofson’s computer showed that he had ordered M-16 parts. Olofson also had a manual that described how to convert a semiautomatic AR-15 to an automatic M-16 by substituting the very M-16 parts that were in Olofson’s gun. This evidence strongly suggests that Olofson had actually made the modifications that converted his firearm to an automatic; at a minimum it demonstrates that he was aware that the modifications had been made and that those modifications allowed his gun to fire automatically. 3 its terms does not require any explanation for automatic fire (such as that a particular type of ammunition be used or that a firearm be modified to cause automatic fire); nor does the statute require any particular number of tests or any particular “error rate.” Factors like those identified by Olofson are relevant only to the extent that they shed light on whether Olofson knew that his firearm fired automatically. And, to the extent that Olofson might suggest, for example, that ATF’s first negative test (using special military-grade ammunition) shows that he did not know that his firearm fired automatically, there is ample evidence in the record that demonstrates that he did have the requisite knowledge. 1Again, Olofson argues only that his firearm was not a machinegun under § 922( o).A machine gun is any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(23); 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). The record contains ample evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that Olofson’s firearm fit Case 2:06-cr-00320-CNC Filed 03/13/2008 Page 3 of 6 Document 80 4 this definition. In fact, the firearm consistently fired automatically at a number of different points in time, beginning before Olofson provided it to Kiernicki and extending through the final ATF testfire. Kiernicki testified that Olofson acknowledged having fired the gun automatically before loaning it to Kiernicki. And Kiernicki testified that he fired the gun automatically on the day officers seized the gun from him. And, after the gun was seized, FTO Kingery test fired it and found that it fired automatically. In fact, the jury was shown a video of the firearm firing automatically. That the firearm failed to fire automatically on one occasion when it was loaded with special hard-primered military grade ammunition does not remove the gun from the compass of the statutory definition. II. Section 5845 is not unconstitutionally vague as applied Olofson’s conduct. While 18 U.S.C. § 922( o) proscribes possession of a machinegun, the term“machinegun” is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845. Olofson contends that the latter statute is unconstitutionally vague. “Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law for either of two independent reasons. First, it may fail to provide the kind of ordinary notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits; second, it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56 (1999);see also United States v. Lim , 444 F.3d 910, 915 (7th Cir. 2006). Vagueness challenges that donot implicate First Amendment freedoms must be analyzed in light of the application of the statute to the facts of the case at hand. United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87, 92 (1975). Astatute is unconstitutionally vague as applied only if the defendant could not have known Case 2:06-cr-00320-CNC Filed 03/13/2008 Page 4 of 6 Document 80 5 that the conduct underlying his conviction was covered by the statute. United States v.Warner , 498 F.3d 666, 697 (7 Cir. 2007); see also Maynard th v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 361(1988) (explaining that a vagueness challenge “rest[s] on the lack of notice, and hence may be overcome in any specific case where reasonable persons would know that their conduct is at risk.”). Olofson claims that § 5845 is vague because, under the facts of his case, “he could not know whether he had a malfunctioning rifle or a machine gun.” Def. Motion at 5. Olofson misapprehends the relevant issue,which is simply whether – at the time that he transferred the firearm to Kiernicki – Olofson knew that it fired automatically. And, again, here there is ample evidence that Olofson had such knowledge. See supra, note 1.The evidence presented at trial established that Olofson’s gun fired automatically not because of an unintended malfunction, but rather because M-16 components had been installed. The evidence further established (or at least supports a rational jury finding) that Olofson knew that the M-16 components caused the gun to fire automatically. Most importantly – and most to the point for purposes of the present motion – the evidence presented at trial established that Olofson provided his automatically firing firearm to Kiernicki and that, when he transferred the gun, Olofson knew that it fired automatically. See supra , note 1. Because the statute provides clear notice that such conduct is criminal,and because the clear definition of a machinegun (particularly when coupled with the knowledge requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2)) did not result in arbitrary enforcement, the statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Olofson in this case. Case 2:06-cr-00320-CNC Filed 03/13/2008 Page 5 of 6 Document 80 6 Conclusion Based on the foregoing, the government asks that this Court deny Olofson’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. Respectfully submitted this 13 th day of March, 2008.STEVEN M. BISKUPIC United States Attorney By: s/Gregory J. Haanstad Assistant United States Attorney Gregory J. Haanstad: 1036125 Attorney for Plaintiff Office of the United States Attorney Eastern District of Wisconsin 517 East Wisconsin Avenue, Room 530 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202 Telephone: (414) 297-4581 Fax: (414) 297-1738 E-Mail: greg.haanstad@usdoj.gov Case 2:06-cr-00320-CNC Filed 03/13/2008 Page 6 of 6 Document 80 |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
So, my one-sentence synopsis of that last post is that: our secret lab was able to get the gun to fire automatically, and Olofson must have made it a machinegun because he knew how to do that.... oh, and our paid informant said so, and that's the most important part.  |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
imperialism2024 wrote: So, my one-sentence synopsis of that last post is that: our secret lab was able to get the gun to fire automatically, and Olofson must have made it a machinegun because he knew how to do that.... oh, and our paid informant said so, and that's the most important part. The paid informant was also under duress of prosecution for possessing a MG. Same penalty I face now. Plus we can now prove he lied publicly. Same with the ATF. We can prove the government both lied to the court and purged themselves. But to rehash some points I made on AR-15.com for clarification: This model of weapon from Oly arms SGW was made with M16 parts, all 4 of them. I repeatedly had problems with it and replaced the factory trigger group 2 times having the same problem intermittently each time. In 1994 I replaced the factory parts with AR-15 parts from DPMS. The parts in it now were not put in the gun by myself. We asked the feds to print the gun and they refused. They know as well as we do that would have killed their case. So as it was argued at trial, and from now until the end of time this case is officially about a factory gun that malfunctioned. And as the government stated on the record they don’t care if it was a malfunctioning factory gun. All that matters is that they got it to go bang more than once with enough putt sing with it. (Easy to do with no written testing standards) If it goes bang more than once you’re in possession of a MG. If you loan it out and it goes bang more than once after it is on loan or sold you are guilty of transferring a MG. Clear as mud now hey… |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member 
|
Are the parts M16 parts, or are they AR15 parts they're claiming are M16? If the defense hasn't been able to inspect the gun, who knows they're not AR15? Who can prove David put the parts in without prints? Who cares!! Without an M16 sear and bolt, it's not a machine gun. It's getting to the point OCDO need to assign a "Screwed" icon next to certain member's names. Start with David, then Legba, maybe Dan, everyone in Wisconsin, Illinois residents get two because they're double-screwed, California gets a homosexual screw, Michigan's gets a safety head so it can't turn left, Hawaii gets a wood spike because screws harm the environment and have been banned, Texas gets a counter-sunk screw so you can't see it, Minnesota's screw has to be driven in, backed out because it was put in wrong, then driven in again, ... |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
I don't think that one can assert a defense of "my machine gun came from a factory sold as a semi-auto" - mistake of fact?, yes, but I think the record shows that this guy knew he had a machine gun and he transferred it to somebody. Unfortunately, these facts are extremely bad for anybody at anytime. Is the NFA a harsh law? Yes. So Congress needs to repeal it or make it less harsh. |
|||||||||
|
ama-gi Regular Member
|
All of us need to remember if any of us are ever on a jury regarding a gun control law like this, jurors have the right to find a person "not guilty" if they think the law is unjust (whether or not the defendant broke the unjust law) http://fija.org/ |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Pointman wrote: Are the parts M16 parts, or are they AR15 parts they're claiming are M16? If the defense hasn't been able to inspect the gun, who knows they're not AR15? Who can prove David put the parts in without prints? Who cares!! Without an M16 sear and bolt, it's not a machine gun. There are defiantly M16 parts in now. As for prints I asked for them and t as denied. I’m sure because the ATF didn’t want to blow there case. And you’re right about the sear. No sere or provisions for one and there is no MG. So says the ATF. But we were not allowed to say that in court, or show the evidence o there rulings. Tax information don't ya know. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Mike wrote: I don't think that one can assert a defense of "my machine gun came from a factory sold as a semi-auto" - mistake of fact?, yes, but I think the record shows that this guy knew he had a machine gun and he transferred it to somebody. Unfortunately, these facts are extremely bad for anybody at anytime. The defense was it is not a MG. Still is not one. But the paperwork proving that was not allowed to be brought forth in court. The government claimed it was privileged information under section 6103.Income tax crap. So not even the judge could see it. The 20 page memo we have and posted proves they knowingly lied to the court to hide exculpatory evidence that they have ruled that an AR is not a MG unless it has provisions for, or contains an auto sear. It doesn’t matter how many M16 parts it has. No auto sear, no MG. No mods for one, no MG. Period. End of game. You can see why they don't want this known. Not a MG before the kid got it, not one after he played with it either. |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
It's about time to ask Lou Dobbs for an update on David Olofson. http://edition.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9 from: http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/ under Contact |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Pointman wrote: It's about time to ask Lou Dobbs for an update on David Olofson. Just a note, Loe Dobbs is NOT dropping this and will continue to follow up withit. We are in a lul right now waiting for a hearing date for the post trial motions. Most likely will be nothing new untill that happens. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Bladerunner2347 wrote: The 20 page memo we have and posted proves they knowingly lied to the court to hide exculpatory evidence that they have ruled that an AR is not a MG unless it has provisions for, or contains an auto sear. It doesn’t matter how many M16 parts it has. No auto sear, no MG. No mods for one, no MG. Period. End of game. You can see why they don't want this known. Not a MG before the kid got it, not one after he played with it either. Who "ruled"? Cite for "No auto sear" rule? If the gun fires like a machine gun, it's illegal to possess without a tax stamp - has been since 1934. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Mike wrote: Bladerunner2347 wrote:The 20 page memo we have and posted proves they knowingly lied to the court to hide exculpatory evidence that they have ruled that an AR is not a MG unless it has provisions for, or contains an auto sear. It doesn’t matter how many M16 parts it has. No auto sear, no MG. No mods for one, no MG. Period. End of game. You can see why they don't want this known. Not a MG before the kid got it, not one after he played with it either. Both ATF and the courts. A firearm either is a MG or not. Similar does not count, although the ATF like you to think it dose. As for where this information comes from we have it from a few places. The best 2 examples are from an individual that at least for now must remain un named until we are allowed to bring it up in court. He bought a M16A1, or he thought it was. Turns out it was an AR-15 A1 style with a DIAS. When he went to the ATF to fix the form 4 the ATF fixed it by removing the AR from the NFTR registry and placing the DIAS on it. When he requested the AR remain there also (to avoid any problems like mine) they refused, both on the phone and in writing stating that a AR15 with M16 parts is not a MG and cannot be on the NFTR. The only thing that weapon lacked was an auto sear. It had more M16 parts than mine currently dose. Keep in mind this happened at the same time they started their case with me. A firearm either is a MG or not. Similar does not count, although the ATF like you to think it dose. As for where this information comes from we have it from a few places. The best 2 examples are from an individual that at least for now must remain un named until we are allowed to bring it up in court. He bought a M16A1, or he thought it was. Turns out it was an AR-15 A1 style with a DIAS. When he went to the ATF to fix the form 4 the ATF fixed it by removing the AR from the NFTR registry and placing the DIAS on it. When he requested the AR remain there also (to avoid any problems like mine) they refused, both on the phone and in writing stating that a AR15 with M16 parts is not a MG and cannot be on the NFTR. The only thing that weapon lacked was an auto sear. It had more M16 parts than mine currently dose. Keep in mind this happened at the same time they started their case with me. The second thing that brings us to the conclusion so contrary to what most believe is United States v . Fleischli, 3 05 F. 3d 643,6 55 (7th Cir. 2002). It states that a machine gun "will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted." From one of the motions for dismissal: “Here, the only evidence that the weapon at issue fired as a machine gun was when the ATF test-fired the weapon for the second time using soft-primered ammunition. The weapon did not function as a machine gun when it was fired by Robert Kernicki because it only fired three rounds, although there were additional rounds in the gun and Kermicki did not remove his finger from the trigger. The gun therefore did not automatically continue to fire until its trigger was released or the ammunition was exhausted. The government therefore failed to meet its burden to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm at issue was a machine gun" for purposes of 18 US.C. § 922(0). Accordingly, the Court should issue a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29.” There is a lot more out there than this, but these are the 2 we are using as primaries. We have other stuff along the same lines. Dose this answer your question? P.S. For more check out some of the following. US v. Agiular-Espinoza says that a malfunctioning AR15 (hammer follow) is not an MG. "The government's expert, a ATF enforcement officer, Agent McLaughlin, conceded at trial that the AR-15 rifles containing internal "M-16" components are still legal semiautomatic AR-15 rifles provided they are not equipped with the sear or auto-sear. n3 (Tr. p. 109, Aplt. App. #Q, p. 299). " Last edited on Tue Apr 29th, 2008 10:53 pm by Bladerunner2347 |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
In the large amount of research I did previously (and posted the results on OCDO in the now-closed thread), I found what Bladerunner is saying to be true. As he said, there is more to it, but the two main points are sufficient. I did personally read that the BATFE did not consider an AR-15 without auto-sear and M16 bolt to be a machine gun. The prosecution of David is completely contrary to their previous finding. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
ama-gi wrote: All of us need to remember if any of us are ever on a jury regarding a gun control law like this, jurors have the right to find a person "not guilty" if they think the law is unjust (whether or not the defendant broke the unjust law) And we both know that if anyone would have mentioned this to them they would have been summarily excused and a new set of "untainted" jurors brought in. The government looks dimly on informed people. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Bladerunner2347 wrote: The second thing that brings us to the conclusion so contrary to what most believe is United States v . Fleischli, 3 05 F. 3d 643,6 55 (7th Cir. 2002). It states that a machine gun "will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted." So, if I have an M16, equipped for 3 shot burst, and have no tax stamp, that's fine under your reading of Fleischli? |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Mike wrote: Bladerunner2347 wrote:The second thing that brings us to the conclusion so contrary to what most believe is United States v . Fleischli, 3 05 F. 3d 643,6 55 (7th Cir. 2002). It states that a machine gun "will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted." Under that ruling it would not be a MG. If the court was to reinterpret it, I believe to make it clear and consistent with other ruling they would have to say it was designed or redesigned to be a MG by the provisions for, or the presence of the auto sear. But under a strict reading of that one ruling it would not be a MG. Taken in conjunction with the other rulings it would be, but the one I borrowed out would not be. Likewise a strict reading and ruling of ANY weapon firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger is also incorrect in that it is assumed the definition of the word firing is to include the detonation of ammo in the gun under any circumstance instead of a purposeful act. If it were clarified so as to not include malfunctions atrocities like this case would not happen. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Just a note to update everyone. I was just given official notice of a post trial motion and sentencing date of 8 May. Motions will be heard right before any sentencing, with the hope that at least one of the motions to dismiss wins out. If not, then at least we have an answer on this from the court and the full story can come out. Anyone wishing to attend the hearing is welcome. It will be heard at the Federal court house in Milwaukee Wisconsin in front of Judge Cleverts at 1430. I’d be there a bit early if you want seating. The motions are expected to take 30-60 minutes; any sentencing would take an additional 15-30 minutes if it goes that far. If you want attend please plan on good behavior in the court room, and by extension the Federal court house. Neither is the place for any dissent. Opinions can be freely rendered after the hearing outside the courthouse to whoever chose’s to listen. I will also add that additional reading on this can be done in at least the next two issues of Soldier of Fortune. In addition to that Lou Dobbs has more coverage ready to roll from some very prominent people weighing in on this subject. Most likely additional coverage will also be given to me after the fact. I will post any dates of the airing when it is decided the timing is right by the network. I promised you more and now it’s coming. True to my word all I can say is brace yourselves, its worse than you think, and unlike the BATFE in this case we can prove it. |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member 
|
I'm looking forward to reading "the rest of the story" as they say. |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
Bladerunner2347 wrote: Just a note to update everyone. I was just given official notice of a post trial motion and sentencing date of 8 May. Motions will be heard right before any sentencing, with the hope that at least one of the motions to dismiss wins out. If not, then at least we have an answer on this from the court and the full story can come out. Anyone wishing to attend the hearing is welcome. It will be heard at the Federal court house in Milwaukee Wisconsin in front of Judge Cleverts at 1430. I’d be there a bit early if you want seating. The motions are expected to take 30-60 minutes; any sentencing would take an additional 15-30 minutes if it goes that far. If you want attend please plan on good behavior in the court room, and by extension the Federal court house. Neither is the place for any dissent. Opinions can be freely rendered after the hearing outside the courthouse to whoever chose’s to listen. I wonder if there would be a big enough group of supportive OCers to do an OC walk to the courthouse... |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
imperialism2024 wrote: Bladerunner2347 wrote:Just a note to update everyone. I was just given official notice of a post trial motion and sentencing date of 8 May. Motions will be heard right before any sentencing, with the hope that at least one of the motions to dismiss wins out. If not, then at least we have an answer on this from the court and the full story can come out. Anyone wishing to attend the hearing is welcome. It will be heard at the Federal court house in Milwaukee Wisconsin in front of Judge Cleverts at 1430. I’d be there a bit early if you want seating. The motions are expected to take 30-60 minutes; any sentencing would take an additional 15-30 minutes if it goes that far. If you want attend please plan on good behavior in the court room, and by extension the Federal court house. Neither is the place for any dissent. Opinions can be freely rendered after the hearing outside the courthouse to whoever chose’s to listen. I wish more would openly carry like I do. But the 8th may be a bad time for others to try. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
K.new information for everyone. More to come befor the 8th. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 06-CR-320 DAVID R. OLOFSON, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE DAVID R. OLOFSON, by counsel, submits this memorandum in support of his motion for the disclosure of evidence. I. Background. Olofson had previously requested disclosure of the SGW letter from the government on September 25 and December 10, 2007. The government refused to turn over the SGW letter. Accordingly, Olofson filed a motion to compel its disclosure, along with other documents not relevant here, on December 28, 2007. At the final pretrial conference on January 3, 2008, the Court refrained from making any decision regarding the SGW letter until it heard back from the government as to whether a SGW letter actually existed. On January 7, 2008, the morning of Olofson’s trial, the Court inquired of the government as to the existence of a SGW letter. The government asserted that a SGW letter exists, but that it did not believe that the SGW letter was discoverable because, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), it contained privileged tax return information and was therefore protected under 26 U.S.C. § 6103. Moreover, the government contended that in any event the SGW letter was not exculpatory. Based upon the BATF’s representations, which were made through the government that the SGW letter contained return information, the Court denied Olofson’s motion to compel its disclosure. Olofson proceeded to trial and was found guilty of transferring a machine gun by a jury on January 8, 2008. II. Argument. Any correspondence from the BATF to SGW/Olympic Arms regarding the use of M-16 parts in its AR-15 rifles is not privileged return information as that term is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and is therefore discoverable. Moreover, the SGW letter is discoverable because it directly contradicts the government’s theory during the pendency of this case that because Olofson’s AR-15 contained the following M-16 parts, it qualified as a machine gun: a M-16 trigger, hammer, 1Olofson has never seen a copy of the SGW letter. The information regarding its contents comes from the recollection of Bob Schuetzen, owner of SGW/Olympic Arms. Schuetzen’s original letter from the BATF was destroyed in a fire a number of years ago. disconnector and selector. Accordingly, the SGW letter is material to the issue of guilt or innocence and is discoverable under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). A. Return Information. For the purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 6103, a return is any tax or information return that is required by, or provided for, or permitted under Title 26, which is filed with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(1); Ryan v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms,715 F.2d 644, 646 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “A ‘tax return’ is a return filed by the person liable for the tax to which the return information relates.” Ryan, 715 F.2d at 647, FN4. Return information includes, among other things, a taxpayer’s identity, amount of his income, assets and liabilities if they are received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(2)(A); Ryan, 715 F.2d at 646. According to Ryan, the proper test to determine whether something is return information is to look to the formality of the document and the standardized requirement of its filing. Id. at 647. Under the standard created by then Judge Scalia of the D.C. Circuit, the SGW letter is clearly not return information. The document(s) in question1 were generated by the BATF and address BATF’s concern regarding SGW/Olympic Arm’s use of M-16 parts in its AR-15 rifles and malfunctions that may be occurring because of the use of M-16 internal parts; the documents were not filed by the taxpayer. Nor were the documents generated to protect or regulate revenue streams or assess liability regarding a particular taxpayer. Instead, the correspondence issued from the BATF in response to safety concerns about SGW/Olympic Arms AR-15 rifles. Because the SGW letter is not a return as defined in § 6103, the contents of the letter are not return information and are not protected from disclosure under the statute. B. BATF Memorandum. Not only does the BATF’s position mistake the controlling law with regard to the § 6103 privilege, but its own internal policy on the subject contradicts its position. Olofson has been made aware of an internal BATF memorandum that discusses the sort of information that the BATF collects that should be considered return information. The BATF memorandum at issue is BATF memorandum number 22889, which is dated August 18, 1980.2 The memorandum discusses whether the information listed on NFA transfer cards is protected under 26 U.S.C. § 6103 in response to a request for disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The BATF memorandum opines that the only the name the transferee on the NFA transfer form is return information because the transferee may be subject to tax or liabilities based upon the transfer. All other information on the NFA transfer forms would be discoverable under the FOIA. Because the SGW letter does not discuss the transfer of firearm or registration of firearm under the NFA, under BATF policy, the SGW letter does not contain return information for the purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and it is discoverable under the statute. C. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Through the entire pendency of this case, the government has maintained that it is the presence of internal M-16 parts in Olofson’s AR-15 that make it a machine gun. See, e.g., Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at 3 FN1, Docket No. 80. Upon information and belief, the SGW letter directly contradicts the government’s assertion regarding the four internal M-16 parts. As such, that information is material to the issue of guilt and is discoverable under Brady. III. Conclusion. WHEREFORE, David R. Olofson, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion to compel the disclosure of copy of any and all correspondence from the BATF to SGW/Olympic Arms or concerning SGW/Olympic Arms’ use of M-16 parts in the production of its AR-15 type weapons between 1980 and 1990, particularly the use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and selectors. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1, 2008. Respectfully submitted, s/ Brian T. Fahl Brian T. Fahl, Wis. Bar #1043244 Counsel for Defendant |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
1For the purposes of simplicity and clarity, Olofson will refer to the correspondence as the “SGW letter” from this point forward. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 06-CR-320 DAVID R. OLOFSON, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE DAVID R. OLOFSON, by counsel, submits the instant motion to compel the disclosure of evidence. Olofson seeks to compel the government to disclose a copy of any and all correspondence1 from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to SGW/Olympic Arms or concerning SGW/Olympic Arms’ use of M-16 parts in the production of its AR-15 type weapons between 1980 and 1990, particularly the use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and selectors. The Court had previously denied Olofoson’s motion for disclosure based upon the ATF’s representations that the SGW letter contained privileged tax return information. Olofson now seeks disclosure of the SGW letter because the BATF’s contention that the SGW letter contains privileged return information is both incorrect in law and contrary to internal BATF policy. Moreover, the SGW letter is exculpatory because upon information and belief, it contains evidence that directly contradicts evidence elicited by the government during trail that was central to its theory of guilt. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In support of this motion, Olofson submits an accompanying memorandum of law. WHEREFORE, David R. Olofson, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Court order the defendant to disclose any and all correspondence from the BATF to SGW/Olympic Arms or concerning SGW/Olympic Arms’ use of M-16 parts in the production of its AR-15 type weapons between 1980 and 1990, particularly the use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and selectors as soon as practicable. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1, 2008. Respectfully submitted, s/ Brian T. Fahl Brian T. Fahl, Wis. Bar #1043244 Counsel for Defendant 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182 Milwaukee, WI 53202 |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 06-CR-320 DAVID R. OLOFSON, Defendant. DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 33. DAVID R. OLOFSON, by counsel, submits the instant motion for a new trial pursuant to FED. R. CRIM P. 33. The instant motion is dependent upon Olofson’s motion to compel the disclosure of evidence, Docket No. 81. If the motion to compel is granted, the new evidence will require that a new trial be granted in the interest of justice. In support of his motion for a new trial, Olofson alleges the following: 1. The disclosure of the correspondence from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to SGW/Olympic Arms constitutes newly discovered evidence. Because the instant motion is based upon newly discovered evidence and has been filed within three years of the verdict, it is considered timely. FED. R. CRIM P. 33(b)(1); United States v. Cavendar, 228 F.3d 792, 802 (7th Cir. 2000). 2. The SGW letter directly contradicts the government’s position at trial that Olofson’s AR-15 rifle was a machine gun because it had four internal M-16 parts. Contrary to a motion brought under Rule 29, the Court, in a motion under Rule 33, is allowed to evaluate the weight of the new evidence and make credibility determinations regarding it. United States v. Eberhart, 388 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir. 2004). After evaluation, it is clear that the SGW letter undermines the jury’s verdict in this case and creates a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Reed, 875 F.2d 107, 113 (7th Cir. 1989). WHEREFORE, David R. Olofson, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion for a new trial pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 33. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1, 2008. Respectfully submitted, s/ Brian T. Fahl Brian T. Fahl, Wis. Bar #1043244 Counsel for Defendant Federal Defender Services of Wisconsin, Inc. 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182 Milwaukee, WI 53202 |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
Finally! Fantastic! |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member 
|
A cliffhanger hanging on the SGW letter. Best wishes. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
I belive these are not known here yet either. UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATFS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 06-CR-320 DAVID R OLOFSON, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL David R. Olofson, by counsel, asks this Court to issue a judgment of Acquittal pursuant to FED. R. CRIM P. 29(a). Olofson argues that the government's case in chief failed to present evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction. The government is required to prove that Olofson knowingly transferred a machine gun. A "machine gun" is a weapon that, once its trigger is depressed will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released, or the ammunition is exhausted." United States v. Fleischli, 3 05 F. 3d 643, 6 55 (7th Cir. 2002). Here, the only evidence that the weapon at issue fired as a machine gun was when the ATF test-fired the weapon for the second time using soft-covered ammunition. The weapon did not function as a machine gun when it was fired by Robert Kiernicki because it only fired three rounds, although there were additional rounds in the gun and Kiemicki did not remove his finger from the trigger. The gun therefore did not automatically continue to fire until its trigger was released or the ammunition was exhausted." The government therefore failed to meet its burden to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm at issue was a machine gun" for purposes of 18 US.C. § 922(0). Accordingly, the Court should issue a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, January 7, 2008. Respectfully submitted, Brian P. Mullins Brian T. Fahl Counsel for David R. Olofson 517E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182 Milwaukee, WI 53202 |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
This is the original that was denied under the 6103 claim by the government. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, Vs Case No. 06-CR-320 DAVID R. OLOFSON, Defendant. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY DAVID OLOFSON by counsel, asks the Court to compel the government to disclose the following evidence 1. All documents pertaining to the 10/20/06 and 11/20/06 reports of technical examination, including but not limited to: work notes, work sheets, personal notes, photographs, video, audio, management directives, e-mail, etc. 2. Copy of the published testing procedures used in FTB testing and examination of defendant's firearm, as well as whether those procedures are publically available. 3. All training certificates, diplomas, levels of expertise, etc., on the AR-15 and M-16 firearms for SA Jody M. Keeku. 4. All ATF correspondence to and from SGW and Olympic Arms regarding the use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and safety selectors in AR-15 type firearms, specifically between 1980 and 1990. 5. All documents concerning the removal, correction or update of any AR-15 type rifles with M-16 components from the NFRTR (NFA registry) from 1986 to present, specifically but not limited to entries made by: Rick Vazquez and Sterling Nixon of the FTB and Ken Houtchens and Gary Shiables of NFA. 6. All documents relating to the refusal to accept any AR-15 type firearm with M-16 components for registration on the NFRTR. 7. All FTB letters of classification, determination, etc. of a “shoe lace" being determined a machine gun or “string trick”, specifically including 1996 to present. 8. All documents relating to the removal of Mr. Sterling Nixon from his position of Firearms Technology Branch Chief. This information can be obtained from the ATF director's office from Lou Raden or Audry Stucko. Counsel for Olofson has previously requested these items from the government by letters dated September 25, 2007 (1) and December 10, 2007 (copies of the letters are attached hereto). The items requested are essential to Olofson's defense and are also needed to present to Olofosn's expert witness before Olofson can provide the government with a summary of expert testimony as required by FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(b) (1) (C: The requested items will help to demonstrate that ATF has determined that the particular Olympic Arms rifle at issue here is not a machine gun. As such, these items constitute exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.5. 83 (1963), and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause imposes a burden on the prosecutor to "learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government's behalf." United States v. Hamilton, 107 F.3d 499,509 (7th Cir.1997). (1) In this letter, Olofson also requested the following items: (1) Copy of ATF Ruling 81-4; (2) A TF "Open Letter," Federal Firearms Licensee News Publication, issued in the fall of 1986; (3) United States v. Corcoran, Case No. 88-11 (W .D. Pa. April 5, 1988), transcript pages 39-40, which should be available to you from ATF Chief Counsel's Office; (4) ATF March 11, 1986 memorandum concerning the use ofM-16 components in AR-15 type rifles; (5) United States v. Staples, N.D. Oklahoma (Judgment entered February 21, 1991), testimony of BATF agent McLaughlin, which should be available to you from ATF Chief Counsel's Office. The government responded in a phone call that it will not provide these items to Olofson as they can be obtained elsewhere. Additionally, the government indicated that if these items are obtained from other sources, it would not challenge the authenticity of the documents. Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, December 28, 2007. Respectfully submitted, Brian T. Fahl, Bar # 1043244 Counsel for Defendant David Olofson 517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182 Milwaukee, WI 53202 |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Another news flash. The hearing, and possible sentencing, on the 8th has been changed. New date is the 13th at 1430. Reason giving is that the Judge believes the documents we have submitted deserve serious attention on his part, and he believes the current time table would not allow him to give them the attention they need. We will hopefully find out on Tuesday what he finds out in his investigation on the submitted documents. Also noteworthy is the fact that the ATF has removed a pertinent document from there web site. One that they claimed was “privileged 6103” information that they had up for public viewing. |
|||||||||
|
BobCav Founder's Club Member 
|
What was the old link? |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
BobCav wrote: What was the old link? I can get that to you shortly. I just have to grab it from Len. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Another update. Just was told CNN decided now was a good time to run the next segment on this issue. It will be airing on Lou Dobbs tomorrow. I’ve been told you will find some interesting personalities weighing in on this one. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Looks like I’ll be busy with CNN tomorrow morning again talking about some of the information the judge has found so interesting. Maybe I can help clarify a few things for the good folks out there still wondering what’s been going on. Time will tell. I’ll post a few more picks and drop a note when the next part airs after tonight. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Ok. A lot of folks have been asking questions about what the ATF pulled down from their web sight to try to hide it from sight. This is a copy of it. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Open_1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Open_2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Open_3.jpg Last edited on Wed May 7th, 2008 09:17 pm by Bladerunner2347 |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
Bladerunner2347 wrote: Ok. A lot of folks have been asking questions about what the ATF pulled down from their web sight to try to hide it from sight. This is a copy of it. Looks like photobucket moderators have been busy. They wrote:   "THIS IMAGE OR VIDEO HAS BEEN MOVED OR DELETED. photobucket" ETA: Hmmm, now the URL fetches images. Curious. Last edited on Wed May 7th, 2008 09:19 pm by Doug Huffman |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member 
|
Anyone have a Link to the New Dobb's Video on this? |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
The Photobucket links are working again. "In addition, the definition of a machine-gun also includes any combination of parts from which a machine-gun may be assembled, if such parts are in possession or under the control of a person." They then re-defined it and made it even less restrictive (page 2). This sounds like the drug laws. If you have the items necessary to make methamphetamine, which would be coffee filters, a heater (like the coffee maker burner plate), starter fluid, lithium batteries, and anything containing pseudophedrin, (plus one or two other common things I'll leave out), you're a felon. That makes about 1/3 of America felons, just because they drink coffee, take pictures, and have some sort of gas engine that starts hard. Same here. If your guns and other items in your house could be made to malfunction to fire more than one round with one pull of the trigger, you're a felon. If you have any combination parts designed and intended for use in a machine gun (such as perhaps an AR15 stock and barrel, which are used in the M16), you're a felon. I feel completely infringed. With all the membership money, attourneys, and members the NRA has, you'd think a group lawsuit would be filed against such infringment. At least I'd think, if I didn't know better. Edit: Maybe I should say I feel my rights are being infringed, because I feel "pissed-off." I was working and missed the Lou Dobbs update!  Any video link would be appreciated.Last edited on Thu May 8th, 2008 01:44 pm by Pointman |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
Pointman, I was about to comment/criticize your list of meth ingredients, but decided not to after I realized I didn't want to have DEA JBTs breaking down my door later today... |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
imperialism2024 wrote: Pointman, I was about to comment/criticize your list of meth ingredients, but decided not to after I realized I didn't want to have DEA JBTs breaking down my door later today... They may take that to mean that you want it tomarrow instead... |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
Imperialism: I guess there are several ways to "cook" "meth," and I have forgotten a few things over time. It's not something I'm worried about being overly correct on.  The thing was I've found a few meth labs in my travels, and when I read the federal code on what it takes to be convicted, I was shocked. I switched from paper coffee filters to the gold one right away! Disclaimer: I've never been involved in the manufacture, transport, purchase, etc. of illegal drugs, and ain't anywhere close to an expert. The closest I come is putting brown mustard on a burger, and have stopped doin' that since Legba got busted for it. ;P |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Just finished another interview with Bill tucker from CNN. They are running another segment tonight with some of the new footage. Lot of work to do in very little time but they seem to do well under pressure. Be interesting to see what they come up with. |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member
|
Mike wrote: Bladerunner2347 wrote:What does fire like a machine gun mean? Cite please. I find that phrase nowhere in the NFA.The 20 page memo we have and posted proves they knowingly lied to the court to hide exculpatory evidence that they have ruled that an AR is not a MG unless it has provisions for, or contains an auto sear. It doesn’t matter how many M16 parts it has. No auto sear, no MG. No mods for one, no MG. Period. End of game. You can see why they don't want this known. Not a MG before the kid got it, not one after he played with it either. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Thundar wrote: Mike wrote:Bladerunner2347 wrote:What does fire like a machine gun mean? Cite please. I find that phrase nowhere in the NFA.The 20 page memo we have and posted proves they knowingly lied to the court to hide exculpatory evidence that they have ruled that an AR is not a MG unless it has provisions for, or contains an auto sear. It doesn’t matter how many M16 parts it has. No auto sear, no MG. No mods for one, no MG. Period. End of game. You can see why they don't want this known. Not a MG before the kid got it, not one after he played with it either. It dosen't say that anywhere. It uses the word shoot. The assumtion being that any waepon that goes bang more than once is shooting because shooting is undefined. My thought is that shooting is a deliberate act on the part of the operator and the weapon. If it was not intended and the weapon has not been made for it to "shoot" more than once then it is not really shooting. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/05/07/ldt.gov.guns.cnn Link to yesterdays show. |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
U.S. Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922 (o) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. (2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; Definition of machinegun in TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922: machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) David is accused of transferring a machine gun without the authority of the United States. U.S. Code TITLE 26 > Subtitle E > CHAPTER 53 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 5845 (b) Machinegun The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. What is the definition of "shoot"? No law dictionary I have free access to defines "shoot," but Webster does as: (2): to drive forth or cause to be driven forth by an explosion So basically, the law is overly broad. Any AR15 could be readily restored (restored--since it is a civilian derivative of a M16) to shoot automatically more than one shot. Every AR15 owner is therefore committing a felony. Since this is obviously not the spirit (intention) of the law, the definition as proposed by David, to purposefully and intentionally fire more than one round of ammunition automatically [with a strong degree of certainty and repeatability], is correct. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Pointman wrote: U.S. Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922 So are you saying I'm not half as crazy as I feel some days? With all this crap going on I can't help but question my sanity at times. |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
I'm saying that David has been prosecuted under a gross misapplication of the law. Legba has been prosecuted under a gross misapplication of the law. Danbus has been prosecuted under a gross misapplication of the law, repeatedly. GJD has been detained under a gross misapplication of the law. There is a clear pattern, and it is unconstitutional, and unconscionable, and inexcusable. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Pointman wrote: I'm saying that David has been prosecuted under a gross misapplication of the law. And still so many in the Congress and Senate sit quietly and fiddle. (Not all though) |
|||||||||
|
BobCav Founder's Club Member
|
Hey David, if you could be found guilty of posession of a machine gun when it was only a malfunction, then why isn't this guy? http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15867855&BRD=2068&PAG=461&dept_id=387468&rfi=6 Might be something there you can use. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
BobCav wrote: Hey David, if you could be found guilty of posession of a machine gun when it was only a malfunction, then why isn't this guy? Because each incident is handles on a case by case basis. This allows for selected enforcement in a non uniform matter. It has the unintended consequence of creating an us and them society where we have the proverbial animal farm. We are all equal, some are just more equal. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Tonights Dobbs Coverage. Watch it you will get a shock. http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2008/05/08/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
Thanks for the link. Lou does a great job of covering the information in the case (which was previously posted here on OpenCarry). |
|||||||||
|
BobCav Founder's Club Member
|
WOW! Awesome piece... God Bless Lou Dobbs! Hang in there David. There are a lot of us pulling for you! |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
I thought Lou's Comments on "Where on earth are the NRA on this" & "So, A Mans's Life is on the line here and they are Playing Games?!?!" Were Great! My Jaw nearly hit the Floor. |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
The NRA said they weren't "invited" into the case, so are waiting for the sentencing. Very telling--at least it tells me that unless THEY can claim victory, THEY won't stand up for what's right nor voice the opinions of their members. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Eagleeye wrote: I thought Lou's Comments on "Where on earth are the NRA on this" & "So, A Mans's Life is on the line here and they are Playing Games?!?!" I was speechless my self also. |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member
|
Like Ricky Ricardo said, Lucy, you have some splaining to do. 1. Why did you lie to the judge about the letter being tax information? 2. Why can nobody but BATFE examine the AR-15? 3. What page of testing procedures manual did you use to test the AR-15? BATFE. They are worse than worthless they are petty tyrants. They intentionally pervert justice to rig trial outcomes. Wake up and smell the cordite. Yuck, this sort of grotesque miscarriage is systemic in their organization. There is no fixing that mentality. The only way we can be free of their tyranny is to eliminate the BATFE. BOOT THE BATFE and let freedom ring!! |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member
|
+1 to Lou Dobbs |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
deepdiver wrote: +1 to Lou Dobbs He should show up at the NRA convention. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/2008/05/09/gun-owner-convicted-for-malfunction/ New web page put up for this on Lou Dobbs web site to make following the story easier. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Bladerunner2347 wrote: deepdiver wrote:+1 to Lou Dobbs Imagine him doing that with a film crew in tow and demanding answers on where they were when all this started for you. that would be intresting. and I bookmarked the link. |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
I sent a brief thank-you to Lou, and hope others here do the same. The more positive feedback he gets, the more able he is to keep getting stories like this on the air. If there is a lot of interest, there will be a lot of advertisers, more revenue, more stories, and more people reached. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
JPFO Links on BATFE including my case, newly updated. http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/bootbatfe.htm |
|||||||||
|
Comp-tech State Researcher 
|
Pointman wrote: I sent a brief thank-you to Lou, and hope others here do the same. The more positive feedback he gets, the more able he is to keep getting stories like this on the air. If there is a lot of interest, there will be a lot of advertisers, more revenue, more stories, and more people reached. Good idea Pointman.....TY sent to Mr Dobbs and associates. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Government finally responded, but only to the motion for a full acquittal. They do a good job making our arguments for us. A lot happening very quickly now with a few working into tonight to be ready for arguments tomorrow. As such this will be the last bit of information I can post until tomorrow night. Below are some excerpts from the reply and some internal correspondence. Government keeps trying to call an apple an orange. May have worked the first time around, but I don’t think this bird is going to fly anymore. And e-mails and other documents on Olofson’s computer showed that he had ordered M-16 parts. 1. Email referred to clearly shows Olofson turning down M16 parts, not buying them. Firearms Technology Officer (FTO) Max Kingery testified that Olofson’s firearm fired automatically because, although it was a semiautomatic AR-15, it had M-16 fire control components installed in it. Kingery also testified that the particular M-16 components – the trigger; the selector; the hammer; and the disconnector – in Olofson’s firearm were not installed by the manufacturer. Someone had to have modified the firearm to include those four components. 2. Max Kingery testified he did not think the weapon was made with M16 parts, but that he did not check with the manufacture. Len Savage said it was and did check with the manufacture. Therefore no modification was done by Olofson. Olofson also had a manual that described how to convert a semiautomatic AR-15 to an automatic M-16 by substituting the very M-16 parts that were in Olofson’s gun. 3. The manual does not show how to convert a AR-15 to a M16 by replacing these 4 parts. It covers much more complex conversions requiring knowledge Olofson does not have. That the firearm failed to fire automatically on one occasion when it was loaded with special hard-primered military grade ammunition does not remove the gun from the compass of the statutory definition. 4. Shooting is undefined in the statue. It could be said it requires a intended action on the part of the person firing the weapon, and a purposeful design of the weapon to do what is intended. In this instance there is no conversion, but a malfunction. As such the weapon was malfunctioning, not shooting. A. The evidence at trial clearly supports a rational finding that the firearm in question was a machinegun. Olofson argues that, because the statute is written in the present tense, a firearm qualifies as a machinegun only if it always fires automatically and only if it fires automatically regardless of the type of ammunition used. Olofson’s interpretation does not flow from a reading of the plain language of § 922(o). Rather, his interpretation engrafts additional elements onto the statute, which by its terms does not require any explanation for automatic fire (such as that a particular type of ammunition be used or that a firearm be modified to cause automatic fire); nor does the statute require any particular number of tests or any particular “error rate.” Factors like those identified by Olofson are relevant only to the extent that they shed light on whether Olofson knew that his firearm fired automatically. 5. Lack of scientific testing standards makes any testimony by the ATF vague. Under the US attorneys standard if they can do anything to make a gun go bang more than once you are guilty of a felony. Doesn't matter if they merely use ammunition it is not chambered in or modify the weapon themselves. This makes every semi automatic weapon contraband. How con an regular person figure out if a weapon is a mg if the ATF can't get it strait? No standers makes it unconstitutionally vague. 6. There was no evidence about the parts presented in court because the government lied to the judge to cover it up. There was testimony though. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Comp-tech wrote: Pointman wrote:I sent a brief thank-you to Lou, and hope others here do the same. The more positive feedback he gets, the more able he is to keep getting stories like this on the air. If there is a lot of interest, there will be a lot of advertisers, more revenue, more stories, and more people reached. +1, Kudos Sent! *Notices Above Post by BR* Are they (the BATFE) High on something? That's like trying to make a Felony DUI Charge Stick for drinking a Cup of Coffee while walking.... Last edited on Tue May 13th, 2008 12:08 am by Eagleeye |
|||||||||
|
unreconstructed1 Regular Member
|
you joke, but it wouldn't suprise me at all. they could always argue that since caffeine is a drug, there is the "influence" and since you were walking on a public sidewalk, you were dangerously close to the road, and since.... |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
unreconstructed1 wrote: you joke, but it wouldn't suprise me at all. they could always argue that since caffeine is a drug, there is the "influence" and since you were walking on a public sidewalk, you were dangerously close to the road, and since.... It would be more along the lines of: In our laboratory, we managed to get a person so high on caffeine (using unspecified ingredients as well) that he thought he was driving a car, and began driving into people. Therefore, your drinking coffee while walking down the street is DUI. Which, by the way, is a felony, and you'll be in prison at least 10 years. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
imperialism2024 wrote: unreconstructed1 wrote:you joke, but it wouldn't suprise me at all. they could always argue that since caffeine is a drug, there is the "influence" and since you were walking on a public sidewalk, you were dangerously close to the road, and since.... Ugh, my brain hurts just thinking about that one.... Wouldn't suprise me though if some jerkwater town's PD tried to pull a stunt like that. heck the jerkwater town I grew up in tried something similar to a guy my dad worked for, a dumb rookie cop tried giving the guy a DUI ticket for drinking coffee while driving. |
|||||||||
|
IdahoCorsair State Researcher 
|
David's getting sentenced today, right? Sad.  |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
I hope things turn out well, and he gets at least one pleasant surprise. (an appeal or better) |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Posted by FMD on AR15.com (I have no idea how accurate this is) http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483&page=61 30 Months incarceration, No Idea if this is true or not, thought I should post it just the same. Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 12:03 am by Eagleeye |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member
|
Eagleeye wrote: Posted by FMD on AR15.com (I have no idea how accurate this is)Daaaammmnnn ... based on what I have been able to glean about the case over the last months I'll just say  and I hope the appeal goes well. It will be interesting to see if he is released on his own recognizance during the appeal or if he will be incarcerated. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
More info from FMD on AR15.com =========================================================== I apologize I didn't post more earlier, I was posting from my phone. My faith in "The System"™ has been totally crushed. I had the inside scoop reading the PACER docs from the beginning. I've read the transcript in full (unable to be in the courtroom for trial). I've seen BATFE's video. I've heard both sides of the argument, and listened well to the Judge at the sentencing hearing today. I fully expected a mistrial, a vacated verdict, or at least some acknowledgement of prosecutorial misconduct. Instead, I heard how the fact that Olofson once emailed "a Vigilante Group" (the Minutemen) makes him a threat to the public. How the fact that he had the gall to open carry a firearm (no law against OC in WI) while trick-or-treating around the children shows his dangerous unwillingness to abide by the State as well as the Federal law. How his talk of citizen sovereignty is proof of his willingness to circumvent the law. How his twenty-some years of Military service was proof of his expertise at MG manufacturing. How the testimony of his "customer" (Kernicki) was to be taken at face value despite the fact that he contradicted himself and recanted on the stand. I even watched as the Prosecution renewed it's objection to turning over exculpatory evidence based on income tax laws that specifically do not apply to the BATFE. The judge did not dispute this, but in the interest of "fairness" requested that the AUSA turn over anything they had. BATFE presented a single memorandum of regulatory compliance, which the Judge admitted in open court that it discussed Oly/SGW's use of M16 parts in the AR15's they produced for better than a decade. "No exculpatory content" he said, and sealed the letter. The Defense wasn't even allowed to look at it. Judge Clevert tacked on 30 hours of community service to each year of the probation based on the trick-or-treating Disorderly Conduct. The Notice of Appeal was filed, and Clevert allowed Bladerunner to report voluntarily for incarceration* based on no history of drug use as well as his exemplary conduct during the trial. ================================================================= Get a load of this steaming pile of (Emphasis Added)class="forumText" I heard how the fact that Olofson once emailed "a Vigilante Group" (the Minutemen) makes him a threat to the public. How the fact that he had the gall to open carry a firearm (no law against OC in WI) while trick-or-treating around the children shows his dangerous unwillingness to abide by the State as well as the Federal law. How his talk of citizen sovereignty is proof of his willingness to circumvent the law. How his twenty-some years of Military service was proof of his expertise at MG manufacturing. How the testimony of his "customer" (Kernicki) was to be taken at face value despite the fact that he contradicted himself and recanted on the stand. class="forumText" Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 02:48 am by Eagleeye |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Yep, FMD had it summed up pretty good. I'll be posting from my notes a bit latter on this morning. |
|||||||||
|
bobcat Regular Member
|
My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family David. This is so obviously a miscarrage of justice as there are so many holes in the prosecutions case. Contradictions, misrepresentations, tampering with evidence and even 'legally' hiding evidence helpful to the defense. Sorry to see that yesterday ended the way it did. Given that the sentence is this short (in court terms), it would certainly seem appropriate for David to be free while his case is appealed. If not, he could actually complete his sentence before it's resolved. -And don't think the jabbuts don't know that. How utterly disgusting. At the least, this is a bow shot to ALL semi-auto firearms owners that a malfunction can 'legally' be interpreted as an operable machine gun. At the worst, an innocent man has been railroaded into jail by overzealous and patently dishonest prosecutors supported by a system that has become a perverted joke. I can't explain via keyboard how utterly disgusted and PISSED I am. My faith in the system is fading fast. If such has been done, Please advise us how to contribute to a fund to assist your family and your appeal. Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 03:19 pm by bobcat |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
K. These are the facts listed from my notes in the courtroom during the motion hearing and sentencing. They are from what was said by 3 individuals, the Judge, the assistant US attorney, and the defense attorney. Nothing in here is to be taken as a quote since I’m condensing it from around 10 pages of shorthand, although some of it will be nearly identical to what was said. I have already been told by a half dozen attorneys to still keep my mouth shut and not express any pointed opinion other than I am very disappointed at the turn of events as they unfolded. Their reasoning is the high likelihood of this being overturned. This is not to say others can’t speak their opinions and other stories about this can’t be told other individuals involved. More from them later to clear up some of those glaring holes everyone knows is there in this case. Motions were done in this order: Disclosure New trial Acquittal As soon as I heard what order the judge wanted to do them in I knew this was going south. All were denied for the following reasons. It is not necessary to allege or prove the weapon was modified in any way. No one has alleged or proven that it was, nor has the jury found that it was modified. All that the government needs to prove is that the gun meets the strict statutory interpretation. That it may be a factory gun in a configuration approved by the ATF makes no difference as far as the statue is concerned. As such the government disclosed a single document to the court, one of many we were seeking to have disclosed. The judge looked at it, said it appeared to be a letter to SGW/Olympic arms, that it did seem to discuss the guns being made with M16 parts, but because the idea that it was made that way has no bearing on the statue, and because the jury was not asked to find any changes to the weapon the document was not exculpatory and need not be disclosed. The document was then added to the evidence list and sealed. With that sealed there is no new evidence for a new trial to happen. No one would comment on the covering up of any paperwork under the 6103 tax issue. But the judge admitted the government has not disclosed all possible paperwork to the defense. Video of the gun firing the commercial ammo is played. Judge says a malfunction in a semi can be a MG under the statue. Admits there is no M16 bolt carrier or auto sear in the gun and that the gun was apparently made with the 4 M16 parts it has. Points to his interpretation of it being a MG based on Agent Kingeries testimony and says he could not give any credibility to Mr. Savages testimony because it was all hearsay and second hand as he only spoke with SGW and only read Agent Kingery s report but never tested the gun himself. Moved on to ATF ruling 81-4 and the cocorian case from 88. Both say you have to have an auto sear to have a MG. Points to Agent Kingorys testimony that it does not need a sear to be a MG. We pointed out rulings that it must work properly as a MG as designed and not jam. Judge admits the record indicates the gun will not work all the time but repeatedly jams. Again under a strict reading of the statue is doesn’t matter. That is the basics on the motions. No new evidence, no new trial. Not void for vagueness because the statue it clear, any gun that goes bang more than once, no other requirements for standardized testing of any sort, or modification to the gun needed. |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
Link to AR15.com where the information was first posted: http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483&page=61 Well, there you have it, David was officially made an example of. The message is we are now supposed to live in fear of the government, because we don't have Freedom of Speech, nor any way of self-defense and the right to life. David has a great shot at winning an appeal, if he can get it before Obama gets in office, because at that point there will be bigger issues for the government to tackle. What I can't fathom is how the judge increased David's sentence because in a past case of legal open carry David was charged with concealed carry (because his holster "concealed" part of the gun), and he plead it as Disorderly Conduct. That case was already tried, and now he gets more time for it??? God bless Legba, because he needs it. (And Mike wonders why more people don't OC in WI...) I also can't believe David is a threat to the public because he sent an e-mail. My God, that makes everyone here a threat to the public, along with everyone on every other gun website, or every person who e-mailed a gun dealer, or everyone who goes to church, because we all know how the government condemns Christianity through public schools. And not only are we threats to the public, but we're also potential felons, because the ATF might find a way to get anything that's not a revolver to fire more than once. In fact, by using a spring-recoil-contraption a revolver might fire more than once. As Glenn Beck would say, "This is just crazy." David, by God man, my heart goes out to you and your family. For the rest of us, start sending e-mails to Lou Dobbs, because this case needs to get strong national traction and keep it. ----- Mr. Dobbs: It's unconscionable that David Olofson was convicted. What I can't fathom is how the judge increased David's sentence because in a past case of legal open carry David was charged with concealed carry (because his holster "concealed" part of the gun), and he plead it as Disorderly Conduct. That case was already tried, and now he gets more time for it? I also can't believe David is a threat to the public because he sent an e-mail. Does that make everyone on a gun-related web-forum a threat to the public, along with every person who e-mailed a gun dealer for information, visited a gun-manufacturer's web-site, or everyone who goes to church, because we all know how the government condemns Christianity through public schools? Are all handgun owners potential felons, because the ATF might find a way to get anything that's not a revolver to fire more than once, and by using a spring-recoil-contraption a revolver might fire more than once? Double-barrel shotguns are known to discharge both barrels at once, so are they machine-guns and their owners felons? Please continue standing up for the rights of Americans. Law-abiding citizens need all the help they can get. Last edited on Wed May 14th, 2008 09:09 pm by Pointman |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
what a bunch of garbage... are you still going to be trying to get a appeal? or has that road been blocked? |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Ok. On to the sentencing phase. Judge commented on the following things. My knowledge of the different jurisdictions we have sovereignty. Knowledge of weapons and military training that make me particularly dangerous. Claims I knew the weapon was a MG as per testimony, even though the testimony was recanted and the only statement from me to the local Pd was I know what a MG is and that is not it. Claimed I have ties to vigilantly militia groups. Points to a email between me and the minute men discussing stopping down and helping out someday as proof of the allegation. Points to pdf manual of conversions as proof I somehow meant this to happen. (Thought this was about a malfunctioning gun?) As addition proof I meant this to happen says I wanted Mr. Kerniki to shoot it as an auto, why else would I give him 100 rounds every 2 weeks. Adds that I admit knowledge of FA to the LEO’s. Leaves out the part where I added I don’t have the skill for machining. Talks about a CCW case that was tossed after I produced a video of the gun in the open and a 911 tape with the caller saying it was open carry. Said it didn’t matter if the charge was dropped and that it was openly carried (legal in WI), anyone who carries a gun in public is endangering public safety (LEO anyone?). Especially if children are around. Points to a mystery document supposedly a letter of reprimand from the army. No proof of service was included with this document. ATF says they did not get it from the Army, but found it in the data on one of the hard drives taken. Document claims I destroyed data on military computers, sold or transferred military data to outside militia or terrorist groups, and was AWOL. I have JAG looking into this BS now. Will know more later. Interesting to note this happened at the same time I received an Honorable discharge and AAM for maintaining Army computers and improving unit data processing. Not sure how I can supposedly be doing both things at the same time, but I will find out. Brings up the giving of ammunition is evidence of some kind of illicit profit making on my part somewhere and that I must have been ignoring the law somewhere to do that. Claims all of the above is proof of less than honorable service in the military and willful disregard of the law. Goes over cases showing people who had real MG’s on a first offence and were either given 12 months probation of let off with a deferred prosecution agreement. Says just because it’s done doesn’t mean it should be done in this case, and that an example must be set to deture others from committing the same crime. End result is a sentence as follows: 30 months confinement (26 served with good behavior). 2 years probation with 30 hours community service each year. Give DNA No guns or drugs $100.00 Special assessment Points out importance of submission to federal system Puts on the record that He has no reason to believe I am a flight risk or that I would misbehave in anyway. Says I have been polite and co operative throughout the entire process. As such I am not remanded to custody, but will self report when noticed at my expense. Notice of appeal was put on the record. Judge would not issue a stay of execution of sentence at his level; one is being put in for at the next level. Some other paperwork is being done, not clear on it all yet. When I know more I will post it. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Eagleeye wrote: what a bunch of garbage... Appeal is being done with th NRA. |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
Bladerunner2347 wrote:Appeal is being done with th NRA. Since they're the ones that wrote the initial anti-gun laws, it makes sense to appeal to the source. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Pointman wrote: Bladerunner2347 wrote:Appeal is being done with th NRA. Of course...  |
|||||||||
|
massltca Regular Member 
|
Eagleeye wrote: I thought Lou's Comments on "Where on earth are the NRA on this" & "So, A Mans's Life is on the line here and they are Playing Games?!?!" I know, I was very pleased to hear this. At least some in the media are paying attention to this tragic miscarriage of justice. I hope this goes all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary to win this man his freedom. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Pointman wrote:What I can't fathom is how the judge increased David's sentence because in a past case of legal open carry David was charged with concealed carry (because his holster "concealed" part of the gun), and he plead it as Disorderly Conduct. Say What?  Back to Bladerunner2347's Post. In all this is like something out of 1984. At least your Appeal was Filed, but there is something obviously amiss if those comments are anything to go by. Hopefully you can get your appeal "Before" you have to report for Incarceration and this steaming pile of ___ is overturned. This is just crazy. Edit to Add: The Lou Dobbs Page covering this has been Pulled, no clue why, but the videos are still there and I can post links if anyone needs them. Last edited on Thu May 15th, 2008 06:22 am by Eagleeye |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Eagleeye wrote: Pointman wrote: Appeal is not filed yet; the notice was just put in. We have to wait for this case to be filed before we can fie the appeal, briefs, or even the stay on the execution of sentence. Fair chance that will be granted. If not then yes, I'll have to wait behind bars until vindicated. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
http://www.radioamerica.org/POD_ggl.htm G. Gordon Liddy podcast, just hit the web. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Now a while back I promised to show everyone how deep this rabbit hole is and let them see the whole story. As such I am releasing a number of witness accounts. Most have nothing to lose or gain from speaking up other than the fact they make themselves a target of the feds. These will be released one at a time over the next few days. Draw your own conclusions about who has been telling the truth through this, who has been full of BS, and who is out of control. Now with no further ado here is the beginning of the rest of the story from those who lived it. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
How You Can Become A “Gun Felon” http://gunsmagazine.com/DGR0708.html “If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it’s a machine gun.” At 2:15 PM on January 8 of this year, the Milwaukee jury in the trial of United States vs. David R. Olofson convened. Forty minutes later they emerged, returning a unanimous verdict against the veteran and National Guardsman: “Guilty.” Olofson, you see, had loaned one of his rifles, and it malfunctioned at a range, firing off short bursts before jamming. This was called to the attention of local authorities who seized the rifle, an Olympic Arms AR-15. They in turn called BATFE, who decided to make a federal case out of it, charging Olofson with illegally transferring a machinegun. Enter Len Savage (See “Failing the Test,” July 2005), President of Historic Arms, LLC, brought in by Olofson’s defense to testify the automatic fire was not by design or intent, but rather by mechanical failure, and that the firearm in question was simply a semiautomatic rifle that needed to be repaired. The opposition would have none of that. Savage was not permitted to personally examine the rifle — not even to touch it. He was required to observe as the ATF officer opened it for inspection. His professional credentials were challenged by the prosecution, who wanted his testimony excluded, even though Savage is a firearm designer by profession, and the government’s expert witness received all of his training in the 2-1/2 years he’d been with the bureau. Then the prosecution reneged on its pledge not to sequester witnesses, and had Savage removed from the courtroom so he could not hear the government’s testimony. So in the end, it didn’t matter this was merely a case of a “hammer follow.” It didn’t matter the rifle in question had not been intentionally modified for select fire, or that it did not have an M16 bolt carrier or sear, that it did not show any signs of machining or drilling, or that that model had even been recalled a few years back. It didn’t matter that, when asked if he’d test fired the gun, Savage testified “From my examination and from what I saw on the [ATF test] video I wouldn’t want to attempt it … the video shows the guy who was shooting it was so afraid to fire it from the shoulder he had to hold it out in front of him. So he knew it was dangerous.” It didn’t matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer type. It didn’t even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not important to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted today. What mattered was the government’s position that none of the above was relevant because “[T]here’s no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it’s a machine gun.” No matter what the cause. Think about if your semiauto ever malfunctions. Because that’s how close you could be to becoming a convicted “gun felon.” |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Rabbit Hole 2  |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
Make an example? I don't know about anyone else, but this has pretty much dropped "scared of the BATFE jack-booted thugs" off of my radar screen and replaced it with an insatiable anger. The only question that remains, now, is how to begin the prosecuting, under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, every person involved with the prosecution of Olofson (including the "judge", who I'd say is a member of the prosecution)? It took me a good several minutes to edit this post down to something that could be posted and wouldn't reflect poorly on OCDO. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
imperialism2024 wrote: Make an example? I don't know about anyone else, but this has pretty much dropped "scared of the BATFE jack-booted thugs" off of my radar screen and replaced it with an insatiable anger. You ain't seen nothing yet, this is just the tip of the iceberg. |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member
|
This isn't just anger inducing and upsetting, it is downright scary. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
deepdiver wrote: This isn't just anger inducing and upsetting, it is downright scary. Dosn't really surprise me. the only part that did surprise me in any way was the sheer absurdity of many of the BATFE Claims and the Judge's Comments. |
|||||||||
|
BobCav Founder's Club Member
|
To think it only lasted 232 years. Nothing at all compared to the REAL empires of the world. If things don't change, the only remnant of the America our forefathers designed will be a two page chapter in the history books 100 years from now. Mark my words. Want to learn the future? Study the past. |
|||||||||
|
Flintlock Regular Member 
|
BobCav wrote: To think it only lasted 232 years. Nothing at all compared to the REAL empires of the world. Pretty sad.. Reminds me of Patrick Buchanan's book A Republic Not An Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny. We should pay a lot more attention to George Washington's farewell address and acknowledge his concerns. Fortress America baby.. |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member
|
BobCav wrote: To think it only lasted 232 years. Nothing at all compared to the REAL empires of the world.Well, the re-establishment of our rights may not be as peaceful as we all hope and pray it is. Still, not ready to give up on the political process just yet or call it over. It is easy to lose sight of the many freedoms we have retained and even newly established since our founding. Although, this travesty certainly shakes one's optimism. Still, the fat lady isn't singing yet, although I think I heard her warming up in the wings. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Rabbit hole #3  |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Official BATFE Report (AKA Bull$h!t) http://www.atf.treas.gov/press/2008press/field/051408stp_berlinman-sentenced.pdf To quote one partticular Statment within it... “Today’s sentence is a victory for legal gun owners,” said ATF Special Agent Zapor. Really? Then why are we all so pi$$ed off about it???   And get this BS... Olofson acknowledged to agents that he knew how to convert semi-automatic rifles to What are these nuts high on? Last edited on Fri May 16th, 2008 10:53 pm by Eagleeye |
|||||||||
|
unreconstructed1 Regular Member
|
I have said many times before, that were the founding fathers ( some of them anyway) to see what has become of their "glorious experiment" they would be the first ones in line to lead the revolution. America today is no better than England was in 1776. |
|||||||||
|
imperialism2024 Regular Member
|
unreconstructed1 wrote: I have said many times before, that were the founding fathers ( some of them anyway) to see what has become of their "glorious experiment" they would be the first ones in line to lead the revolution. America today is no better than England was in 1776. Actually, if the founding fathers were alive today, they would be either sitting in a Federal prison on "suspected terrorist" charges, or dead after being Ruby Ridged. |
|||||||||
|
Comp-tech State Researcher
|
imperialism2024 wrote: unreconstructed1 wrote:I have said many times before, that were the founding fathers ( some of them anyway) to see what has become of their "glorious experiment" they would be the first ones in line to lead the revolution. America today is no better than England was in 1776. Sad, but most likely very true....... |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
I Heard an NPR Talk Radio host class this as Red Dawn in Super Slo-Mo. Last edited on Sat May 17th, 2008 03:42 am by Eagleeye |
|||||||||
|
Flintlock Regular Member
|
imperialism2024 wrote: unreconstructed1 wrote:I have said many times before, that were the founding fathers ( some of them anyway) to see what has become of their "glorious experiment" they would be the first ones in line to lead the revolution. America today is no better than England was in 1776. Definitely true.. Except they probably wouldn't be "charged" with anything. They would just be labeled as enemy combatants and would rot in a prison until some federal judge attempted to come to their rescue and force the government to charge them with something. They would be scorned and branded as treasonous hate mongers and militia types by the media and wouldn't be given the time of day. How times have changed. |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on May 15 ran a story that deserves to be in the Opinion section, at the bottom of the bird cage. They take a few things from David Olofson's past and dramatise them, presenting only one side. Apparently they couldn't find anything damning that is actually related to the latest trial, so they tried hanging him on things from the past. From what I can gather, a group of specialists were ordered to make some changes to the computer system. They did, and it resulted in a potential hole to the outside. They plugged the hole and moved on. As an expert in the field, I base this observation on the facts: If the men weren't under orders to make the changes, charges against them would have been filed. Security holes to the outside sometimes happen in complex systems, and something as simple as sharing a printer can create one. Data transmission is logged, so if data had been leaked it would have been recorded and reported. No data was reported leaked. No investigation was conducted on any of the people involved. MSJ added the part about Wisconsin militias, not the Army. MSJ added a lot of "could be inferred" or "might have" statements. Welcome to the liberal machine. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=751515 |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Pointman wrote: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on May 15 ran a story that deserves to be in the Opinion section, at the bottom of the bird cage. They take a few things from David Olofson's past and dramatise them, presenting only one side. Apparently they couldn't find anything damning that is actually related to the latest trial, so they tried hanging him on things from the past. I still have the Army looking into it and haven't recieved word back on it yet. To my knowledge there never was any problems. But yes they did seem to do a lot of digging and still they came up with nothing. Good way for the feds to try to drag a red herring down the road. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
This is rabbit hole number 4, with a few more to go, most much worse. Don’t know how or why and won’t comment, but things like this make us wonder.   |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Sounds a LOT like the stunts they pulled on Randy Weaver. |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member
|
This is very scary. Either a veteran and his associates have committed conspiracy and perjury or the BATFE has again gone off the ranch. I really wish that I could have faith in the government and dismiss all of these rabbit hole accusations as a bunch of desperate conspiracy theory crap. Then I read the tax information shenanigans that BATFE pulled to frustrate defence discovery and I become very angry. I put more faith in this conspiracy crap than a federal law enforcement agency (BATFE). BOOT the BATFE. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
What you can read Monday and Tuesday will kill any doubt you have as to who is off base. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Thundar wrote: I really wish that I could have faith in the government and dismiss all of these rabbit hole accusations as a bunch of desperate conspiracy theory crap. "Conspiracy Theory's" have a nasty habit of being "Conspiracy Facts". People just don't want to entertain the thought of any of them being true so they view them as a form of insanity. |
|||||||||
|
Thundar Regular Member
|
Eagleeye wrote: Thundar wrote:I really wish that I could have faith in the government and dismiss all of these rabbit hole accusations as a bunch of desperate conspiracy theory crap. I know. Damn shame it is this way. Read my entire quote. My intent was to put BATFE lower than crap. Last edited on Sun May 18th, 2008 06:12 pm by Thundar |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Thundar wrote: I know. Damn shame it is this way. Read my entire quote. My intent was to put BATFE lower than crap. I realised that, I was just adding to it. the reason I did is it would appear that a few are following what I said to a "T" on AR15.com and THR. |
|||||||||
|
Prometheus Regular Member 
|
I've been trying tofollow this case as closely as I can... total railroad job... whats really scarry is that a jury actually convicted! I basically expect this sort of thing from batfe... but any rational person/juror could easily see this did NOT fit the bill for machine gun in any sort of the manner. Makes no sense how that part of this happen. honestly makes me want to cry that good mans life is f'ed because of 12 idiots on a jury, to say nothing of the judge, prosecutor or agents responsible for this. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Rabbit Hole #5 This one only reinforces what the others on the range said, the next 2 will bring up further allegations of increasing severity. I’m trying to convince one of my other neighbors to do one on when they dropped me off after the raid. If he does it would prove perjury on the part of the ATF at a motion hearing. But he is pretty scared right now so I’m not sure if #8 will ever get done, but at least we have these 7 if anything.  |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Will be live on this show, right now for 5pm Tuesday. May change.
"Live Fire" Radio Show With Larry Pratt http://www.soundwaves2000.com/livefire/ Podcasts http://inforadionet.com/ For internet broadcast.
STATION CITY STATE FREQUENCY KKIM SANTA FE accentradionetwork.com INTERNET (check web for station listings) WGUN ATLANTA GA AM 1010 INTERNET RIGHTALK.com FREEDOM MACON GA FM 91.9 KGGM MONROE AL FM 93.5 KJSL ST LOUIS MO AM 630 KNAK DELTA UT AM 540 KNLB LAS VEGAS NV FM 99.1 KNLB LAS VEGAS REPEATER AZ FM 97.9 KRKS AURORA CO AM 990 KVRN WEST HELENA AR FM 90.7 KXVI DALLAS TX FM 87.9, 99.1 WACE CHICOPEE MA AM 730 WASB ROCHESTER NY AM 1590 WBGC CANTON NC AM 1240 WBTG SHEFFIELD AL AM 1290 WGUN ATLANTA GA AM 1010 WIQR MONTGOMERY AL AM 1410 WKJV ASHEVILLE NC AM 1380 WMJR ROCHESTER NY AM 1380 WPZZ FRANKLIN IN FM 95.7 WRSB ROCHESTER NY AM 1310 WYEA BIRMINGHAM AL AM 1290 WLRY RUSHVILLE OH FM 88.5 |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Minor correction in the radio times. We are now set to record at 10am tomorrow. Initial broadcast on the net and radio stations will be noon on Saturday. Podcasts should be available in less than 48 hours. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Cool, thanks for the Info. BTW, even though we may be eager to find out details of what all went down, don't give out anything that may help you in an appeal/re-trial. As much as I want to know how deep the rabit hole goes, I personaly would rather see you get your life back. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Eagleeye wrote: Cool, thanks for the Info. I'm looking for that also. Long with the satisfaction of seeing some lying lawbreaking POS brought to justice. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Bladerunner2347 wrote:I'm looking for that also. Long with the satisfaction of seeing some lying lawbreaking POS brought to justice. +1000  Like I once told a friend "In the Dictionary under the Definition of FUBAR it should say (See The BATFE)" |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Just in for those not following the topic on ar15.com, FMD just posted this. ======================================================= Posted By: FMD on AR15.com: Had an interesting, two-hour long conversation with a Federal LEO based out of a Milwaukee office (works for one of those three-letter agencies, and knows the court personalities involved). Also spoke directly with Len Savage for roughly three hours after that. Bladerunner, your IM box is full. The above should answer your last. Before I post any more on the subject, I will be sending you an email with my thoughts (Which may take a few days - 5 hours talking with the individuals above gave me a huge perspective change). Folks, I apologize for any confusion I may have caused by mentioning the AR15/M16/M16 modified to SP1 configuration parts. I did so 1) Because I couldn't say with certainty exactly what parts were installed in the gun and was hoping to educate some of you as to the distinct possibility of hammer follow with SA-only parts, and; 2) It really doesn't matter what parts came in the gun or who put them there based on the trial verdict... other than to put us all on notice that if the BATFE can get any gun to double under any circumstance, that gun is now (and evidently always has been) an unregistered MG. As I now understand it, the gun at trial did, in fact, contain all four M16 components that the BATFE claimed it did (in new, seemingly unworn condition). It also had an AR15 carrier (non-shrouded firing pin), and what appeared to be a Diemaco LMG/LSW hammer spring. BATFE wouldn't pull the bolt/carrier assembly for Mr. Savage to inspect, but no outward wear marks could be seen anywhere on FCG parts. PLEASE call anyone and everyone you can think of at the NRA to get them involved with the appeal, and let your congressman know he should be supporting HR 1791, The "Fairness in Firearms Testing" Act. Anything else I have to add can wait for a bit. =============================================================== Last edited on Tue May 20th, 2008 12:13 am by Eagleeye |
|||||||||
|
deepdiver Activist Member
|
Eagleeye wrote: Just in for those not following the topic on ar15.com, FMD just posted this.FMD seems to quite an inside track on certain info. I appreciate your updates on his postings, Eagleeye. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Just to let you know he was going to be our expert witness until we were able to get Mr. Savage. He was still kept in the loop on things, including things not made public, and made it to the last motion and sentencing hearing. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Known that for a while now, been following this almost since it started. And once again here is a link to the AR15 Topic on this. Now up to page 78 http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483&page=78 |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Did the recording for the show at 9AM CT this morning. Seemed to go well. Mr. Pratt did most of the talking so I didn’t have to chew on my foot at all. You should already have a link to where the podcast will be put up. It should be there no later than Monday of next week. We are looking at doing more shows in the near future. Dates and times will be announced. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Might be an Idea to also try to get an interview on JFPO's Talkin to America Show. Lenn Savage should be able to hook you up for that, hes been on it several times himself. Last edited on Tue May 20th, 2008 07:33 pm by Eagleeye |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
HiramRanger on AR15.com just made an intresting observation for those who think either Mr Olofson or the idiot kid put those parts in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I pop into this thread once a day to try to keep abreast. What has me scratching my head is everybody thinks the kid who borrowed the rifle is an idiot. There is agreement that machine gun parts were in the rifle. There is disagreement as to who put the parts in the rifle. BR says it wasn't him. There seems to be a split whether ATF did it or not. A lot of folks think the kid did it. So my question is how would this idiot kid know to put a Diemaco (sp?) spring in the rifle when many people here who have much more knowledge wouldn't know to do that? Doesn't compute. Either the kid is clueless or he appears to have a much greater understanding of how an AR15/M16 rifle functions than we give him credit for. The fact that a relatively rare spring that would facilitate the hammer follow is in the receiver seems to indicate to me that the clueless kid didn't swap parts. So that puts it back into play for either ATF or BR to have swapped the parts. Or am I just not understanding? Which is always possible. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darned good point! Last edited on Thu May 22nd, 2008 02:28 am by Eagleeye |
|||||||||
|
KimberG19 Regular Member
|
A friend of mine in the CIA used to say that the ATF were basically a bunch of bitter bureaucrats who couldn't get into the FBI. They're probably the most tyrannical group in the country. Combine the authority of law enforcement with the bureacracy and bitterness of the DMV. This whole business is disgusting. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Eagleeye wrote: HiramRanger on AR15.com just made an intresting observation for those who think either Mr Olofson or the idiot kid put those parts in. He has that one nailed. |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
That Livefire Radio Podcast still has yet to surface.... |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
I musta forgot to post the last update here. They rescheduled it for June 14th. Edit to add we did record it on Tuesday though. Full hour worth. Larry Pratt did most of the talking so I woulden't chew on my toes too much. Last edited on Sat May 24th, 2008 02:51 am by Bladerunner2347 |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
While I’m waiting on the last few affidavits to get done I thought I would work on that infamous Email the government keeps referring to. After a whole lot of fighting (feds don’t want it publicly disclosed, go figure(just like the video)) I finally got my hands on that email the government keeps claiming proves I bought a set of M16 FCG parts. Here it is, all four emails over a few week period wrapped up in one. See if you can find the deal for that M16 FCG parts set they claim I bought from him.   |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
They call that "proof"? Can they Read? |
|||||||||
|
Pointman Regular Member
|
In Wisconsin we had to take away the Governor's "Frankenstein Veto" power, where he would take words from different paragraphs of a proposed law and create a new law. (He's a Democrat, and the first one to ever abuse the office so horribly.) Using the original thought of how to read things in WI, I see the e-mail clearly says David was interested in buying "most" "small" "M16" "Parts" and an "M16" "bolt." |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Pointman wrote: In Wisconsin we had to take away the Governor's "Frankenstein Veto" power, where he would take words from different paragraphs of a proposed law and create a new law. (He's a Democrat, and the first one to ever abuse the office so horribly.) So it's not merly a democrat thing but a Wisonsin thing hey... |
|||||||||
|
Eagleeye Regular Member
|
Pointman wrote: Using the original thought of how to read things in WI, I see the e-mail clearly says David was interested in buying "most" "small" "M16" "Parts" and an "M16" "bolt." Yep he only expressed "Interest" in the M16 Parts, most of which appeared to be directed to the 30 round mags. All he aggred to was a Colt Bolt. this makes me wonder if a 3rd grade edumicashun is all that is required to quallify to join the BATFE.... So it's not merly a democrat thing but a Wisonsin thing hey... Maybie its something they put in the Fed Building's Water Supply's...  Last edited on Mon May 26th, 2008 05:34 am by Eagleeye |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Here is the latest information on my case. Some of it is already known, some is not. Over the last few weeks a number of attorneys have been working on the case. The current arias we were/are dealing with is: 1) The extension of the signature bond (After all why would the government want to incur the liability of sending an innocent man to prison ) 2) Expedited Appeal 3) Appeal of the sentence (Average sentence for someone who has a real MG is either differed for 2 years and removed or 12 months probation(Can’t help but wonder what was so different in my case)) 4) Appeal of the conviction (Contrary to the government stance in court the US supreme court and the Appellate court from my district already said guns like this are not MGs, but the jury was not allowed to hear that) The extension of the signature bond was shot down within hours of the paperwork being turned in. Unfortunately this may have been due to the paperwork being incomplete in its details. On the 30th of May my current attorney had what he thought would be the final draft to turn in. ( See page 1-12) I told him to wait until Monday afternoon to give me and others time to go over it and offer any changes. All weekend Larry Pratt and his associates at GOF dug into the issue and came up with more detailed reasoning. Unfortunately my attorney tuned in his original draft with none of the changes being made. The turn in date was the afternoon of 2 June, the motion was shot down the morning of 3 June, I was told of it all on 6 June. And as you can expect I was given notice to report to FCI Sandstone on 10 June with a reporting date of 2 July (This of course is nowhere close to where I live being up near Canada in a different state). ( See page 13) So at this point we can only hope that the expedited appeal goes through so the time spent in prison will be minimal as this error gets corrected. Also that the sentence gets brought down to where it should be to be on par with others, instead of as the judge put it to make a example for similar people out there (read that as gun owners). In the meantime we have many other attorneys from the gun rights side working on this and I have no doubt they will prevail. A simple look at the work they have already done should speak for itself. (Coming shortly.) |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
    |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
    |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
    |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
 |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
These are the changes that GOA asked be made that did not make it in the submited breif.    |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
MP3 of the Live fire show I did a few weeks back with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America. Just posted this morning. http://www.soundwaves2000.com/livefire/ |
|||||||||
|
DopaVash Founder's Club Member 
|
Keep fighting the good fight and let us know if there's any way we can help. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Eagleeye wrote: That Livefire Radio Podcast still has yet to surface.... Up now. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
DopaVash wrote: Keep fighting the good fight and let us know if there's any way we can help. Soon enough everyone can do their part and join the fight. You must always bring the fight top the enemy. I believe we have fought defensive delaying battles for too long. When I get the web site up it will explain more about what is being set up. It's time we make a difference and stop throwing our money away to merely appease the wolves. |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
Just a last minute note to everyone on what is going on. Last week a meeting was arranged by Larry Pratt of the GOA between Herbert W. Titus, of council with the firm of William J. Olson, P.C. out of McLEAN , VA and Washington DC, and Robert Sanders, of counsel with Mark Barns and associates out of Salem, NC. After a day of interviewing myself and reviewing all the available court documents it was agreed upon that there were good reasons to believe this could get overturned and they would take over this case for the purpose of the appeals process. Anyone not familiar with these attorneys and their firms should take the time to look them up. They are considered by many to be the best in this aria, and they have participated in a many of the well known cases like Heller. All of this is being paid for by the Gun Owners of America through Larry Pratt. The appeal was originally scheduled for July 1st has been rescheduled for August 1st. Total time for a ruling on this case is expected to be anywhere from 6-12 months. The most likely outcome is a reversal of the conviction for any number of reasons, some well known, some not, and a remanding back to the lower court for a retrial with instructions on how this trial should be done. Any more questions from this point onward should be directed to one of them. Naturally reaching me after today will be much more difficult, but I do expect to be back in a few months with this miscarriage corrected. Anyone that has to reach me can do so through the attorneys, though a point of contact at (920)923-1480, or directly at the sandstone institution if need be. We will be leavening for Sandstone this morning, meeting with Larry Pratt, and reporting there around 1330 tomorrow. Also finished is the wives Affidavit. After reading it I would suggest you review the motion hearing I had over two years ago to suppress the few statements I made under interrogation (available on the net), and the statements posted by ATF agent Keeku. There appear to be more than one discrepancy. Careful review of the statements by all the involved officers also detail some discrepancies. I leave this to you to ponder. The last affidavit may be some time coming as the person doing it has been out of the country for some time and has experienced a computer breakdown. Getting it fixed where he is will be difficult. His affidavit will detail the unlawful, unwarranted, and uninvited entry of his home, rounding up of his family, and search of his property, during the time the warrant was being executed on my property. Keep in mind when it does come out that the ATF had no warrant for what they did to him and his family, nor did they receive his permission. Timeline for the release of that information is unknown at this point, but it will be posted when it is made available. Much more has been found out about this case with the new and highly qualified attorneys looking into it. Most of it I cannot comment on at this point. But one item of particular interest is this appears to have been a targeted action with Mr. Kiernicki receiving multiple payments from multiple federal agencies. He seems to have been rather busy in the last year also having numerous arrests for everything from underage drinking to resisting arrest. Although at this point the reason for this level of determined action against me is still undetermined, it is speculated by those with more knowledge on this subject than me that it was my activities of helping people on the State level with unwarranted arrests that caused such a disproportionate response. Maybe time will tell if the mere act of helping others in need can be the cause of such unwarranted actions. Lord knows it was made clear in sentencing that a unpopular act, though legal will not be tolerated, and that a simple act of charity like giving someone ammunition they themselves can’t afford is construed to be indicative of a criminal act. I will make information available as much as I can in the future, but expect any updates to be coming from GOA from this point onward. Also keep in mind this is a very costly venture for them. But they felt that a ruling such as we have in this case that allows all firearms to be outlawed and classified as machine guns if the ATF can make it fire more than once. As the judge put it if the statue does not limit the government, then they can do whatever they want to it. Be back soon.   |
|||||||||
|
Bladerunner2347 Regular Member
|
CNN on sight today. Update on Lou Dobbs should be on shortly. See everyone soon enough. |
|||||||||
|
longwatch Founder's Club Member 
|
Good luck Bladerunner. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
Indeed, good luck. |
|||||||||
|
DopaVash Founder's Club Member
|
All our love and support. |
|||||||||