Are you familar with the convicted Army Res.: AR slam-fire?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ignition Override

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
9,389
Location
The Mid-South.
His name is Olofson and many of you have read about this travesty in WI/MN.

The gun was loaned to a friend, then it slamfired at a range.
This happened here with a guy's AR, but nobody called the ATF......apparently the local LEO's involved with Olofson's case could have tried to help much more.

As the NJ Governor reversed a conviction of the man who legally transported a handgun, is there an association to pressure the MN or WI governor to reverse Mr. Olofson's conviction?
 
1. The Olofson case was discussed here. He is not the innocent that some people have made him out to be. Search the treads and you will find the entire story.

2. Gov Christie did not reverse the conviction of Brain Aitken, he commuted the sentence to time served. Aitken is also not a poster boy for gun rights. He knew he broke the law in NJ (as screwed up as the laws are) was offered a plea bargain which would have got him a year. He insisted on going to trial. Search the threads and you'll get the rest of the story.
 
Yeah while the case, on its surface, looking highly suspicious, further research will reveal information that may change your opinion of things. The facts of this case simply don't align with what many people believe they know about it.....rather than rely on internet heresay (of which i won't add to) read the actual facts for yourself....

As for the Aitken case having any bearing whatsoever....why WOULD it? Other than a trial involving an alleged violation of firearm law, what does a case involving the 'loaning" of a possible machine gun (fed law) have to do with a case involving a violation of state law involving transportation/storage of personally owned firearms? The two cases are not in any way comparable to one another, and any ruling in one case would have no standing in the other. The laws the the defendants are accused of breaking have nothing to do with one another, are brought in completely different jurisdictions, being prosecuted at different levels, etc. Long story short, the cases are different on far two many levels to be even remotely comparable to one another
 
Last edited:
olofson? meh

aitken? his room mate and his own mom were amongst those who testified against him. he chose not to speak at trial for himself. and he was extremely well represented
 
Yeah while the case, on its surface, looking highly suspicious, further research will reveal information that may change your opinion of things.
Click to expand...

Those who think that Olofson is a a victim of the BATFE need to do some further research. The gun in question had a three position selector.
 
And I have an AR with an M16 BCG... its not against the law.

The ATF decided to ignore the spirit of the law, which is bad enough, and took the letter of the law to the extreme.

Olofson's AR would fire 2-3 rounds then JAM. And only with soft primer commmercial ammo. Not exactly the work of a criminal mastermind. Where is the victim? Where is the threat to public safety?
 
I am vaguely familiar with both cases. Fox news or forums. I read this thread a few minutes ago and took the advice of researching. I searched for "Olofson ar15 machinegun". Everyhing I open puts the cops, the prosecution, and the witness in a super bad light. Seems the cops used door rams,flash bangs and the whole nine yards.
There is an article that states the good friend was paid "an undisclosed amount of money" for his testimony.
From a jurist standpoint, irregardless of the "history" of the defendant, I would have reached the same conclusion. IF the definition of a machine gun is a firearm that will fire more than one round with a single trigger pull. Period. Guilty. And that scares the holy stuff right out of me. Light triggers at the gun range= jail time.
The Olmpic Arms AR was purchased though a FFL holder. Wouldn't the selector be there at that time?
So tell me the bad side of Olofson.
 
"Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation have taken over the legal defense of David Olofson who was convicted of transferring an unregistered machine gun. In fact, the gun had malfunctioned, and a 1997 BATFE training manual (see toward the end of Appendix B) makes it clear that even if a gun fires a burst but then jams, it is not a machine gun but a malfunction. The brief for Olofson shows numerous errors made by the prosecution and the judge."

http://www.gunowners.com/olofson.htm
 
"Neither Olofson nor his friend was charged with possession of an unregistered machinegun or with illegally manufacturing, modifying, or otherwise making a machinegun. Obviously ATF did not believe they could convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Olofson or his friend had intentionally altered the rifle to fire full-auto so they prosecuted on the easier charge of transferring. Everyone agreed that the gun belonged to Olofson and that he had loaned it to his friend. That meant that the only issue in question in the case was whether the gun was a machinegun. Since ATF is the final arbiter in determining whether a gun is a machinegun, and the law defining machineguns tends to be selectively interpreted by them, the government had a distinct advantage."

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=192&Itemid=37
 
"The local police department, sheriff's department and BATFE raided Mr. Olofson's home by prying apart and kicking down his door. Law enforcement bombarded Mr. Olofson's house dressed in full SWAT gear. They confiscated his computers, firearm manuals, and firearms. No illegal weapons were found. It is also worth noting that Mr. Olofson was an upstanding member of the community with no prior criminal offenses."

http://thelibertyzone.com/2009/01/20/who-is-david-olofson.aspx
 
A guy from this area was at a range and saw it happen with a friend's AR-15. The owner was startled, confused, and told to put it away and take it to a gun smith.

alsaqr and fellow shooters:
In another state I tried out a stranger's G-3, which then had the three-position settings.
The rifle had the red German letters: "F" (Freiheit/freedom= full-auto), "E" (Einzelschuss/single shot) and "S" (Sicher/safety). He told me that the full-auto setting did not function.

Should other people have assumed that the G-3 was capable of full-auto, as people seem to assume about Olofson's AR-15?
Do people assume that a full-auto setting is still operational the way it was designed?
 
Last edited:
Olsofson insisted on acting as his own defense with help from a disbarred lawyer.

•When served with a federal search warrant, the smart thing to do is shut up and get a good lawyer. Posting about your case for the world to see is not a wise idea when the federales come knocking down your door.

•It’s rarely a winning strategy to represent yourself, and using a disbarred lawyer to help you doesn’t sound like one either. This is probably a big reason why NRA didn’t get involved. Most competent attorneys who practice gun law are able to get that kind of help, but NRA has to be asked.

•Ignoring advice of real lawyers who say a legal argument that challenges jurisdiction of the federal argument to charge you won’t do anything except piss off the judge strikes me as a bad idea as well.
Click to expand...

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/05/20/the-olofson-thing/
 
cassandrasdaddy said:
Mr. Olofson was an upstanding member of the community with no prior criminal offenses."


demonstrably a lie

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=15215
Click to expand...

on prior convictions Olofson sustained, including one involving the carrying a concealed, loaded firearm during trick or treating with his children
Click to expand...

So living in Wisconsin with their ridiculous carrying laws made him a felon. Wonderful.

Just like his BAFTE tormenters, you are a slave to the letter of the bureaucratic law, which has nothing to do with justice whatsoever. Gun laws are about oppression and control, anyone with a brain knows that. Using his conviction under an absurd law to condemn his character is a statist dirty trick.
 
^

I only argue the point because you seem to imply that his concealed carry "conviction" is enough to disqualify his status as an "upstanding member of the community".

The website's claim is a simple mistake. Your implied accusation is pathetic because it can only come from a mind devoid of critical thinking.
 
This was discussed extensively here when it was a new story. I don't see any reason to rehash that discussion as nothing in his case has changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
How about the guy convicted due to his AR's malfunction?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
TexasRifleman
T
J
  • Locked
GA ALERT!!! Anti-gun HB197 Due for Vote Tues - NEW FACTS and Details
Replies
1
Views
1K
johnr
J
Back
Top