US v Olofson Update 1/22/09 (AR-15 malfunction = MG case)


PDA






spartywrx
January 22, 2009, 07:19 PM
The case went before the 7th Circuit for Appeals today. The MP3 of the argument can be had here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/KD10POY2.mp3 (right click - save target as). Basically the 3 judge court will determine if the ATF's definition of automatic applies to what happened to Olofson's AR-15. Olofson's lawyer made a pretty good case that the gun is not automatic since the gun shot multiple rounds with one trigger, but stopped firing without exhausting its ammunition or releasing the trigger. Or that's what I heard in the argument, and i'm obviously biased. Also, I noted that the 3 judge panel did not seem to be very familiar with firearms at all.

From what ar15.com said, an opinion will be released in 2-6 weeks.

I couldn't post this for some reason in the correct thread so I started a new topic. Move if needed.

If you enjoyed reading about "US v Olofson Update 1/22/09 (AR-15 malfunction = MG case)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sam Adams
January 22, 2009, 07:33 PM
Why is the ATF's definition of machine gun dispositive? If someone is to be found criminally liable for violating a law, aren't the definitions of the particular acts constituting such a violation supposed to be in the law itself?

This seems to be a case of a malfunctioning gun that was manufactured to be a semi-auto only.

This all, of course, doesn't touch on the issue of why the fed.gov even has the authority to regulate or ban the existence or ownership of full autos - which I believe it does not.

Gunnerpalace
January 22, 2009, 07:44 PM
Olofson's lawyer
So he did get one?

I noted that the 3 judge panel did not seem to be very familiar with firearms at all.

That contributed to his loss, if the judge has no idea what the lawyers are all talking about, would not that be ground for a mistrial?

spartywrx
January 22, 2009, 07:53 PM
The ATF is arguing that the law be interpreted in a certain way. Its not their definition, its what Congress wrote. Its not like the ATF is making their own definitions up. Olofson's lawyer (I presume its a lawyer from the recording) is trying to convince the judges that the ATF has the wrong interpretation that a malfunction can cause an AR-15 to be classified as a MG

Jeff White
January 22, 2009, 11:48 PM
Already under discussion here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=421320

If you enjoyed reading about "US v Olofson Update 1/22/09 (AR-15 malfunction = MG case)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!