View Single Post
Old 05-12-2008, 17:20   #54
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 271
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.
Bladerunner71 is offline