How about the guy convicted due to his AR's malfunction?


PDA






Ignition Override
February 14, 2011, 01:49 AM
I've not seen anything about this guy in quite a while.

He lived in WI, loaned his AR-15 to a guy. The guy took it to a range, where it suffered some sort of slam-fire, and before he was convicted, the ATF refused to let a firearm's expert testify about AR (sear?) malfunctions.
He was sentenced to a few years in prison in MN.

I know almost nothing about ARs, but certainly hope that this guy has won some sort of appeal.

If my memory is wrong about the basic story here, please correct it. This is all that I seem to remember, and none of my gun buddies/friends in the Memphis area or elsewhere seem to have heard about it.

If you enjoyed reading about "How about the guy convicted due to his AR's malfunction?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cassandrasdaddy
February 14, 2011, 06:27 AM
you must have read an account most generous towards the guy with the ar

TexasRifleman
February 14, 2011, 08:43 AM
If my memory is wrong about the basic story here, please correct it.

Google around for David Olofson.

alsaqr
February 14, 2011, 08:45 AM
The genius in question gave his AR-15 to a prospective buyer who took that AR to a range that law enforcement officers frequented.

In July 2006, Olofson lent an Olympic Arms AR-15 rifle to Robert Kiernicki, who took it to a shooting range in Berlin, according to court documents. Kiernicki was responding to an ad posted by Olofson to sell an AR-15.

...................................................................................................

According to court records, Kiernicki turned the rifle's firing selector to the third position, pulled the trigger, and three bullets fired with each pull. Then the weapon jammed.

........................................................................................................

Kiernicki testified Olofson told him the third position was for automatic firing, but it jammed, court records indicate. He also testified Olofson told him he had fired the weapon on the automatic setting at that same range without a problem, according to the records.

....................................................................................................

Haanstad said Olofson had provided weapons and ammunition to so many people he couldn't keep track. A search of his home turned up books on converting rifles to fully automatic, and e-mail on his computer showed he bought M-16 parts, records show.http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29561634.html

brickeyee
February 14, 2011, 11:48 AM
Olofson was not a poster child.

He tried all sorts of bogus arguments initially in court (like 'gold fringe on the flag') and then ended up with a less than competent public defender and a new judge.

cassandrasdaddy
February 14, 2011, 03:39 PM
stupid hurts

dirtykid
February 14, 2011, 09:49 PM
:scrutiny:I cant find that 3rd-position on my AR,, what gives did i get ripped off ??

Blackbeard
February 14, 2011, 10:31 PM
Hmmm....mine doesn't go to a third position. Methinks he may be rightly convicted.

bruzer
February 14, 2011, 10:36 PM
Mine had the third position. Kept it for almost 12 years and fired it at least once a year and got paid to do it!!!
Semper Fi,
Mike

GRIZ22
February 16, 2011, 02:44 PM
the ATF refused to let a firearm's expert testify about AR (sear?) malfunctions.


The LE agency doesn't make determinations about what evidence will allow. The judge does.

Olofson was not a poster child.

He certainly isn't. There are still people talking about "the poor guy who's AR malfunctioned and went full auto". Too many people on gun forums immediately jump to defend anyone arrested for any type of gun violations without knowing, as Paul Harvey said, the rest of the story. If we want to represent ourselves as the responsible gun owners we are we really need to exercise caution when we support someone.

Zoogster
February 16, 2011, 04:09 PM
....

bluesteel63
February 16, 2011, 05:44 PM
Grizz22 well said

alsaqr
February 16, 2011, 09:11 PM
Grizz22 well said


+2

Well said indeed.

sv51macross
February 16, 2011, 11:33 PM
Wasn't there also a guy with a FAL that slam-fired and was prosecuted by the ATF?

kludge
February 17, 2011, 08:47 AM
If we want to represent ourselves as the responsible gun owners we are we really need to exercise caution when we support someone.

Why wouldn't we support ANYONE who is defending themselves against a machine gun charge?

Don't we all believe that the NFA is unconstitutional?

But no, we all scatter and say, "well, he's an idiot", "he knew the law", "see you in 10 years buddy".

:banghead:

brickeyee
February 17, 2011, 11:46 AM
Why wouldn't we support ANYONE who is defending themselves against a machine gun charge?

Don't we all believe that the NFA is unconstitutional?

He did not raise this defense.

Wonder why?

MaddSkillz
February 17, 2011, 12:12 PM
Why wouldn't we support ANYONE who is defending themselves against a machine gun charge?

Don't we all believe that the NFA is unconstitutional?

But no, we all scatter and say, "well, he's an idiot", "he knew the law", "see you in 10 years buddy".

Well said. Idiot or not. A guy is in prison for adjusting his gun so it shoots 3 bullets per trigger pull rather than 1.

Oh the horror!!!! He's a menace to society and we are now all safer since he's in prison!!!

That's our country. That's what "freedom" has become.

Guillermo
February 17, 2011, 12:22 PM
Why wouldn't we support ANYONE who is defending themselves against a machine gun charge?

Don't we all believe that the NFA is unconstitutional?

But no, we all scatter and say, "well, he's an idiot", "he knew the law", "see you in 10 years buddy".

what he said

A guy is in prison for adjusting his gun so it shoots 3 bullets per trigger pull rather than 1.

Oh the horror!!!! He's a menace to society and we are now all safer since he's in prison!!!

That's our country. That's what "freedom" has become.

him too

brickeyee
February 17, 2011, 12:40 PM
Maybe we do not mount challenges to laws by violating them?

It puts you in a real bad spot.

"Yeah judge, I knew it was against the law, but I think the law is invalid."

There are mechanisms to challenge laws (especially ones with serious penalties) without actually breaking them.

Notice this was never raised by the defense?

The other flake arguments he made (including the 'fringe on the flag' admiralty court argument) really pissed off the first judge.

Acting like a flake in federal court is not a good way to get the judge on your side.

Guillermo
February 17, 2011, 12:48 PM
Acting like a flake in federal court is not a good way to get the judge on your side

too bad the Constitution is not a persuasive argument anymore.

kludge
February 17, 2011, 01:13 PM
He did not raise this defense.

Wonder why?


There are mechanisms to challenge laws (especially ones with serious penalties) without actually breaking them.


Not my point.

What would have happened if the black community had said to Rosa Parks, "Well, you knew the law"?

Nothing, that's what.

MaddSkillz
February 17, 2011, 01:47 PM
Not my point.

What would have happened if the black community had said to Rosa Parks, "Well, you knew the law"?

Nothing, that's what.

Truth!!!

TexasRifleman
February 17, 2011, 02:13 PM
What would have happened if the black community had said to Rosa Parks, "Well, you knew the law"?

Nothing, that's what.

Except that Rosa Parks had talked to attorneys before the bus incident and knew exactly what she was getting into. She worked for the NAACP at the time. Doesn't take away from what she did but it changes the discussion completely away from what has happened in this gun case.

If Olufson had a relationship with NRA for example, then made a machinegun specifically to set up a court case that would be closer to the Rosa Parks analogy.

In this case he did no such thing and since his attorney didn't try to make that connection anyway it's done. We can kick and scream but if he doesn't try that legal argument kicking and screaming doesn't do a lot of good.

maniak
February 17, 2011, 02:44 PM
too bad the Constitution is not a persuasive argument anymore.

The U. S. Constitution established a government with three branches. Through one of those branches we (the People) established a law. Through another, the law is enforced. In the third, this guy was convicted by a jury of his peers of breaking that law. I would say it worked pretty well.

If we decide to change the law, we can do that through the branch of government in which we established it. If we decide to challenge its legitimacy, we can do that in the branch in which it is adjudicated. In the meantime, it will be enforced.

We have "a government of laws and not of men," as John Adams is said to have said. I love that about us.

One-Time
February 17, 2011, 02:45 PM
yet the very law was a violation of the constitution and BoR, and is thus null and void

just another innocent mans life ruined by an over reaching federal agency and unconstitutional laws

suzukisam
February 17, 2011, 02:46 PM
the part I don't get is why would you build it, hand it to someone else and say "here go to the range with an obviously illegally modified weapon and shoot it"..

though I agree it is a stupid law, it obviously attracted a stupid person. his ignorance is shown in his coarse of action.

maniak
February 17, 2011, 03:41 PM
yet the very law was a violation of the constitution and BoR, and is thus null and void

just another innocent mans life ruined by an over reaching federal agency and unconstitutional laws

As to the constitutionality of the law, per the Constitution, that decision belongs to the Supreme Court. Individuals may be of the opinion that the Supreme Court ought to rule this law unconstitutional. Given standing, they may even petition the court to do so. It has not done so, to date. It has, however, offered a few rulings on gun-related matters lately.

As to the man's innocence, per the Constitution, that decision rested with a jury of his peers, which determined that he was quite the opposite. Individuals may be of the opinion that the jury erred, but these individuals generally cannot do much about that other than contribute to his defense fund if he seeks redress.

As to the federal agency, it was fulfilling its mandate: enforcing the laws for which it is responsible as those laws stand.

TexasRifleman
February 17, 2011, 04:35 PM
Since this is already a very old topic and we're just rehashing what's already happened, I think maniak's post is a good place to stop. I think he's pretty much captured what has happened here.

If you enjoyed reading about "How about the guy convicted due to his AR's malfunction?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!