Cloverleaf762
Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 48
Maybe we will all have chance to hear from some of them at a later date.
CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight
- Thread starter alan
- Start date
- Status
Historic Arms LLC
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2006
- Messages
- 42
Lou Dobbs is doing a follow up on US v. Olofson and ATF abuses.
I just got word from the executive producer that it will air tonight.
I just got word from the executive producer that it will air tonight.
Bubbles
Member
Just got word... there's an update on this case on Lou Dobbs tonight, 7:00 pm EST.
Bubbles
Member
Dang it - you beat me! That's what I get for resurrecting the archived thread.
Watched it. He turned himself in to begin his 30 month sentence. His appeal or whatever (I'm not good with legal terms) won't be decided until this time next year. They also did a short deal on what the AR15 is and that it is owned by many thousands of Gun owners.
Its beyond me as to how anyone could convict that guy of anything. This proves the ATF is nothing more then an organization targeting people because of its own hate for fire-arms.
Except of course when its agents have them, then its all good..........
Except of course when its agents have them, then its all good..........
guntotinguy
Member
Seen it too,gave me that gut wrenching feeling,ya know?Ever get a thought thats this 'is the things to come'?Sure hope not...
maestro pistolero
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2008
- Messages
- 111
Has the ATF made even a vailed attempt to justify this outrage?
Or are they just standing on their feeble technicality that because the malfunctioning weapon happened to fire multiple rounds, it was suddenly, without so much as a smattering of pixie dust, a machine gun?
Or are they just standing on their feeble technicality that because the malfunctioning weapon happened to fire multiple rounds, it was suddenly, without so much as a smattering of pixie dust, a machine gun?
Luggo
Member
Has the ATF made even a vailed attempt to justify this outrage?
The ATF has never had any pretense of justifying anything they do. They believe they answer to no one.
The ATF has never had any pretense of justifying anything they do. They believe they answer to no one.
ScottsGT
Member
Didn't see it, but is this the same guy that had a known malfunctioning AR-15, that he knew went into full auto, and loaned it out (before making repairs)to a young man that wanted to build his own?
alan
Member
Based on what I've read of this case, items that proport to be excerpts from the trial record, were I on the trial jury, there is no way that Olafson would have been convicted of anything more serious than spitting on the sidewalk.
Possibly such action on my part could be described as Jury Nullification, however in my view the heads that sit on juror's shoulders are supposed to serve as more than mere hat racks. In this case, they seemed to have served only in the last mentioned manner.
Possibly such action on my part could be described as Jury Nullification, however in my view the heads that sit on juror's shoulders are supposed to serve as more than mere hat racks. In this case, they seemed to have served only in the last mentioned manner.
alan
Member
mbt2001 wrote:
I have never understood this case...
The thing strikes me as being quite simple, the following circumstances involved or in play:
1. Re it's exercise of law making powers, The Congress has been unacceptably sloppy. Worse yet, notwithstanding more than ample examples of the problems their sloppiness has led to, they have historically refused to make the obviously necessary corrections to their "work product", the poorly written legislation they enacted.
2. Re the antics of the BATFE, in this case as well as in other cases, the BATFE being simply the latest iteration of what is nowadays described as a "law enforcement agency", this agency has long since, like the horse that "got the bit in it's teeth", run wild.
3. Getting back to The Congress, and it's role in such fiascoes, they have yet to check the transgressions of the above mentioned agency, action that given their oversight responsibility, one would have long since expected.
I have never understood this case...
The thing strikes me as being quite simple, the following circumstances involved or in play:
1. Re it's exercise of law making powers, The Congress has been unacceptably sloppy. Worse yet, notwithstanding more than ample examples of the problems their sloppiness has led to, they have historically refused to make the obviously necessary corrections to their "work product", the poorly written legislation they enacted.
2. Re the antics of the BATFE, in this case as well as in other cases, the BATFE being simply the latest iteration of what is nowadays described as a "law enforcement agency", this agency has long since, like the horse that "got the bit in it's teeth", run wild.
3. Getting back to The Congress, and it's role in such fiascoes, they have yet to check the transgressions of the above mentioned agency, action that given their oversight responsibility, one would have long since expected.
alan
Member
The link in post 32, unless I'm doing something incorrectly, produces nothing other than pictures of variously configured AR-15 type rifles and "folk singing".
Is there a link available to Lou Dobb's latest comments?
Is there a link available to Lou Dobb's latest comments?
Gunnerpalace
Member
The weapon DID go FA when the switch was in the unmarked third spot. So yes it was illegal.
To everybody mad at the ATF, I have never heard one rebuttal of the fact that Olofson's range ratted him out.
To everybody mad at the ATF, I have never heard one rebuttal of the fact that Olofson's range ratted him out.
alan
Member
Gunnerplace writes:
The weapon DID go FA when the switch was in the unmarked third spot. So yes it was illegal.
To everybody mad at the ATF, I have never heard one rebuttal of the fact that Olofson's range ratted him out.
As to who "ratted out who", an interesting, though beside the point question.
As to firearms going FA (full automatic), thereby becoming machine guns, I PERSONALLY experienced 1911 pistols going Full automatic at least twice, possibly four times, in two case the pistol fired multiple shots (two) with a single actuation of the trigger. What any interested observer would have seen was plainly a semi-automatic pistol malfunctioning, rather than a machine gun, legal or otherwise, being fired.
The problem here would appear to be the "work product" of the employees of the people, our federal law makers, who originally failed to differentiate between a malfunctioning semi-automatic rifle, and the often mentioned here "illegal machine gun". Interestingly, they have yet to display the integrity, the wit or the willingness to correct their legislative sloppiness, and while I personally have little or no brief for the BATFE, the role and the responsibility of The Congress for having created this mess seems to go sadly unnoticed and unmentioned. The bungling of The Congress certainly does appear to go uncorrected, and in my view, there lies one hellish problem.
The weapon DID go FA when the switch was in the unmarked third spot. So yes it was illegal.
To everybody mad at the ATF, I have never heard one rebuttal of the fact that Olofson's range ratted him out.
As to who "ratted out who", an interesting, though beside the point question.
As to firearms going FA (full automatic), thereby becoming machine guns, I PERSONALLY experienced 1911 pistols going Full automatic at least twice, possibly four times, in two case the pistol fired multiple shots (two) with a single actuation of the trigger. What any interested observer would have seen was plainly a semi-automatic pistol malfunctioning, rather than a machine gun, legal or otherwise, being fired.
The problem here would appear to be the "work product" of the employees of the people, our federal law makers, who originally failed to differentiate between a malfunctioning semi-automatic rifle, and the often mentioned here "illegal machine gun". Interestingly, they have yet to display the integrity, the wit or the willingness to correct their legislative sloppiness, and while I personally have little or no brief for the BATFE, the role and the responsibility of The Congress for having created this mess seems to go sadly unnoticed and unmentioned. The bungling of The Congress certainly does appear to go uncorrected, and in my view, there lies one hellish problem.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
viz-a-viz:
Of course you don't.
Of course you don't.
Gunnerpalace
Member
I'm sorry no it's not, it has been said time and time again if we want less gun laws we all need to be on the same page, and if the range told, we need to address that.
As for going FA, Post 35
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=362711&page=2
Taken at face value it is interesting.
Last edited:
alan
Member
gunnerplace:
Re the link you furnished, http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...=362711&page=2, one finds a reference to post # 17 Lou Dobbs on US v Olofson, there is mention of "nobody needs a machine gun to hunt deer", a point which some might find interesting. I would submit the following re that. This business of "needs" is a load of you know what, at least in my view.
From what I've read in the various discussions/threads dealing with this matter, it seems that other than wear and tear that one might expect to find in a 20 year old semi-automatic rifle that was other than a "hanger queen", the thing was as manufactured. Given this, might one take it that Olympic Arms,the maker, was illegally making and selling machine guns?
Based on many years of personal experience in competitive shooting of High Power Rifles, including a Garand, I think I know a little about the things, though I have only limited experience with the AR-15/M-16 variety. given that, and notwithstanding my own leanings, I believe I have made them clear earlier, it strikes me that there are some hellish problems with this entire case. I could be wrong here, but that is how the thing strikes me.
Re the link you furnished, http://www.thehighroad.org/showthrea...=362711&page=2, one finds a reference to post # 17 Lou Dobbs on US v Olofson, there is mention of "nobody needs a machine gun to hunt deer", a point which some might find interesting. I would submit the following re that. This business of "needs" is a load of you know what, at least in my view.
From what I've read in the various discussions/threads dealing with this matter, it seems that other than wear and tear that one might expect to find in a 20 year old semi-automatic rifle that was other than a "hanger queen", the thing was as manufactured. Given this, might one take it that Olympic Arms,the maker, was illegally making and selling machine guns?
Based on many years of personal experience in competitive shooting of High Power Rifles, including a Garand, I think I know a little about the things, though I have only limited experience with the AR-15/M-16 variety. given that, and notwithstanding my own leanings, I believe I have made them clear earlier, it strikes me that there are some hellish problems with this entire case. I could be wrong here, but that is how the thing strikes me.
Gunnerpalace
Member
This is true the details will continue to be hashed out for years to come but the three things that unsettle me are:
Ranges that tell on their members,
The possibility of a double-fire and the precedent that I could go to jail for it,
The fact that Mr Olofson acted as his own lawyer (feel free to do what you wish but this was an extremely bad idea), and he has set the case precedent for trials to come.
alan
Member
Gunnerpalace writes:
Quote:
it strikes me that there are some hellish problems with this entire case
This is true the details will continue to be hashed out for years to come but the three things that unsettle me are:
Ranges that tell on their members,
The possibility of a double-fire and the precedent that I could go to jail for it,
The fact that Mr Olofson acted as his own lawyer (feel free to do what you wish but this was an extremely bad idea), and he has set the case precedent for trials to come.
Re your last, you likely could not be more correct, as with he who tries his own case has a poor attorney and a fool for a client.
Re The possibility of a double-fire and the precedent that I could go to jail for it, given that I had 1911 pistols go FULL AUTOMATIC in two instances, and in two instances pistols of the same design fired two shots with a single actuation of the trigger, I guess that I'm really lucky that there weren't any monkeys around with telephones.
As to the following, Ranges that tell on their members, I saw in another post, mention of the following. That this particular range had a strict policy prohibiting full automatic weapons and the firing thereof. Being that as it may, it still appears that this entire fiasco, a polite term or art, arose from a MALFUNCTION. Second interesting point appears to be that The Congress, in it's law making activity, originally failed to differentiate between the function of a machine gun and a malfunctioning semi-automatic rifle. It appears that this is the crux of the matter, for if the law had been written PROPERLY there would have likely been no problem, though of course when dealing with the BATFE, one can never be sure.
At this point, I'm not sure as to what else can be said. As I understand, appeals have been taken, leaving it for a higher court to decide. We shall see, how the thing ultimately turns out, Either way, the Dept. of Justice will not come out of this smelling like that proverbial rose. As for the BATFE,m they have long had a bad smell about themselves, and the passage of time has not improved it. The sir, at least in my view, as above mentioned, there is The Congress, and their input. Seemingly, it gets worse.
Quote:
it strikes me that there are some hellish problems with this entire case
This is true the details will continue to be hashed out for years to come but the three things that unsettle me are:
Ranges that tell on their members,
The possibility of a double-fire and the precedent that I could go to jail for it,
The fact that Mr Olofson acted as his own lawyer (feel free to do what you wish but this was an extremely bad idea), and he has set the case precedent for trials to come.
Re your last, you likely could not be more correct, as with he who tries his own case has a poor attorney and a fool for a client.
Re The possibility of a double-fire and the precedent that I could go to jail for it, given that I had 1911 pistols go FULL AUTOMATIC in two instances, and in two instances pistols of the same design fired two shots with a single actuation of the trigger, I guess that I'm really lucky that there weren't any monkeys around with telephones.
As to the following, Ranges that tell on their members, I saw in another post, mention of the following. That this particular range had a strict policy prohibiting full automatic weapons and the firing thereof. Being that as it may, it still appears that this entire fiasco, a polite term or art, arose from a MALFUNCTION. Second interesting point appears to be that The Congress, in it's law making activity, originally failed to differentiate between the function of a machine gun and a malfunctioning semi-automatic rifle. It appears that this is the crux of the matter, for if the law had been written PROPERLY there would have likely been no problem, though of course when dealing with the BATFE, one can never be sure.
At this point, I'm not sure as to what else can be said. As I understand, appeals have been taken, leaving it for a higher court to decide. We shall see, how the thing ultimately turns out, Either way, the Dept. of Justice will not come out of this smelling like that proverbial rose. As for the BATFE,m they have long had a bad smell about themselves, and the passage of time has not improved it. The sir, at least in my view, as above mentioned, there is The Congress, and their input. Seemingly, it gets worse.
- Status
