Owner of broken rifle surrenders for 30-month sentence

[Sans Authoritas]

Reddbecca, how did I bash the police? LEO's enforce the law, do they not?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Reddbecca]

SA-

Your statement of "we know what LEOs do" along with your name suggests that you're insinuating that the police have nothing better to do than look for an excuse to arrest people whether a crime was committed or not.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

They didn't need to look for an excuse to arrest him, Redd. His friend started select-fire, and the excuse, the alleged crime, was right there. How is that bashing the police?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Zedicus]

First off, it appears a LOT is being Left out in this Thread.

The BATFE Affidavit is only one side of a very large and twisted story.

Want to know the full details, Read this topic on ar15.com

Bladerunner2347 is in Fact Mr Olofson himself.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=507483

it's a LONG read, but contains a LOT of VITAL Information on the entire case from start to finish, I seriously advise everyone carefully read the entire thing before making Ill-Informed posts that can only lead to a argument or Someone adding 1+1 and getting 50.

I can post a Cliff Notes version if anyone wants, but it will take me a couple hours to write it all.

 

[GhostlyKarliion]

it's a LONG read, but contains a LOT of VITAL Information on the entire case from start to finish, I seriously advise everyone carefully read the entire thing before making Ill-Informed posts that can only lead to a argument or Someone adding 1+1 and getting 50.

I can post a Cliff Notes version if anyone wants, but it will take me a couple hours to write it all.

88 pages is alot to read at once, if you have an understanding of the thread thus far, a cliff notes version would be great.

 

[JohnKSa]

So if I believe a law is wrong and unjustly restrains me, my only moral action is to willingly accept being punished for something that is not wrong???

Does anyone else find a response like this INCREDIBLE coming only a week after Heller?

NO, that is CLEARLY NOT your only moral action.

In our country, we can change the laws if they are unjust. However, UNTIL they are changed you either abide by them or take the penalty like a grownup.

 

[Aaron Staub]

SA-

I'm about done with this one. Here are a few final thoughts.

1) My intent in posting in this thread is not to sharpen fine theological points. This isn’t about my personal convictions. My intent is to refute the mis-use of Scripture. You brought the Bible into this discussion, my sole desire was to state that it cannot be used to support your argument in the way that you desire, and the mis-use of the Bible in this respect weakens its true witness, which is the power of salvation. When people throw the Bible around incorrectly, the lost will decide that since the Bible can be interpreted to mean almost anything- it must therefore must mean almost nothing. Can we agree that that is a consequence to be avoided?
2) Quoting a 1789 decision from John Jay doesn’t really apply to the current judicial system. 12 jurors did not decide the Heller case. It was decided by the Supreme Court through the appellate system. If you would like to see a similar example of the change in governmental policies since 1789, please note that the loser of the presidential election does not become vice-president anymore.
3) Your diatribe on the government not being allowed to “protect us from ourselves” is the response I was hoping to elicit with the seat-belt comment. You are a libertarian. That’s great. But again, my intent in this thread is to remind you that that is a personal conviction of your own- it is not inherently more correct than any other political philosophy and the New Testament does not have a word to say in favor or opposition to that philosophy (see #1).
4) “Sans” means “without”. Thus your name means “Without Authority”, which is what I found to be ironic. If you want to imply that your authority is the same as anyone else’s “Aequis Authoritas” might have been a more appropriate choice. Yours sounds more anarchist than egalitarian.
5) You meant 1 Samuel.

I hope there are no hard feelings one way or the other. I don’t have a strong conviction on the ins and outs of this particular issue. (See #1) I felt that you brought in a very poor argument when you invoked the Bible, and felt compelled to say something.

Keep the rubber side down.

 

[koginam]

RPCVYemen
I don't know who the mystery posters are you quote or what experience with OLY arms AR's from the 70's they have or what experience ALCAN1 has with the OLY arms rifle but I have been a type 7 manufacture of firearms and was for more then 9 years a licensed manufacture of class 3 weapons, I sold many oly arms ar's in the 70's they came with all m-16 parts (Trigger, hammer, disconnector, bolt carrier, selector), minus the auto sear from the factory. This is a fact not a guess a fact. The serial number of the gun comes from the same time frame that OLY Arms was using the M16 parts.
The only thing he was charged with was transferring a machine gun one that was sold by the factory with m-16 parts under a determination letter from the ATF. This is a fact not an assumption.
Now you can wine about all the other stuff which has no bearing on any part of the case all you want but he was charged with only one count, found guilty of only one count, this gun was a malfunctioning firearm.

 

[rbernie]

In our country, we can change the laws if they are unjust. However, UNTIL they are changed you either abide by them or take the penalty like a grownup.

Or you can sit around and whine incessantly in Internet forums. Even better, you can label your whining as 'grass roots' activism.

That approach pretty much gives you the moral high ground to spend your entire life sitting on your fourth point of contact doing nothing productive.

 

[Millwright]

Seems to me both sides perjured thermselves and the jury was left with deciding which side lied better.

Ought to have been easily determined what parts, ( by dwg nos and specs) were part of the original BATFE approval to the OEM and if the alleged replacement parts met those specs. If everything's kosher, then we pretty well can say the arm malfunctioned. If not then we can say with equal confidence some basement engineering has taken place.

The problem with accepting BATFE testimony is their long, long history of institutionalized perjury. >MW

 

[Gunnerpalace]

From the docs I read in Legal what happened was (there was a lot of confliction, a lot of people thought because a LEO was recently killed with a EBR they would have gone after them) that the rifle doubled and it was the range that reported it, to (depending of which aff you read) the cops who called the ATF or the ATF.

I'm just interested in this angle.

 

[FCFC]

4) “Sans” means “without”. Thus your name means “Without Authority”, which is what I found to be ironic. If you want to imply that your authority is the same as anyone else’s “Aequis Authoritas” might have been a more appropriate choice.

Sine Censura would work.

 

[taprackbang]

I am reading the 88 page thread tonight.

 

[Zedicus]

Ok, Cliff notes Version link below.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4671208

Skipped going to watch the fireworks to write it, so please read it.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I once had a Marlin Glenfield 60 get so dirty it went auto for 10 or so rounds. Should I go find an ATF agent and let him railroad me?

I wll repeat myself--some ATF agents have done some pretty dumb
things like including Kenyon Ballew's apartment in a raid on another
more deserving suspect in 1971, or lying about Randy Weaver's activities
when he refused to become a snitch in 1990--But quite frankly if your
Marlin 60 went full auto MOST ATF would tell you to get it to a gunsmith.

Now, if I built "trick" AR15s --wink, nudge-- and loaned one out to
go full auto before witnesses, that would be my stupid. I never
met the guy, but a friend of friends played that kind of game, he
thought he would never do anything to get caught but he did get
caught with a large private collection of unpapered NFA items;
he lost his guns and his right to ever own a gun again, even though
it was a nonviolent crime. If it had not been for the Hughes Amendment
1986, he probably would have had them tax stamped and registered.
It is a pity, but most of us know the law, and which side to stay on,
and if you don't like a law, work to change it, don't break it.

Some people accused of being Communists in the McCarthy era
really were Communists who would have instituted a dictatorship
of the proletariat in a heartbeat and sent most of their defenders
to the gulag. Not everyone accused by ATF is totally innocent either
and we would be wise to get all the facts before we champion
another person's case with blind cliches. Of all people, we ought
to know the cost of going off half-cocked and shooting ourselves
in the foot.

 

[Reddbecca]

Now, if I built "trick" AR15s --wink, nudge-- and loaned one out to go full auto before witnesses, that would be my stupid. I never met the guy, but a friend of friends played that kind of game, he thought he would never do anything to get caught but he did get caught with a large private collection of unpapered NFA items; he lost his guns and his right to ever own a gun again, even though it was a nonviolent crime. If it had not been for the Hughes Amendment 1986, he probably would have had them tax stamped and registered. It is a pity, but most of us know the law, and which side to stay on, and if you don't like a law, work to change it, don't break it.

So most of these NFA items were machineguns? Because I was under the impression that it was still legal to assemble short barreled shotguns and short barreled rifles so long as you apply and register with the ATF first.

 

[DRZinn]

Most people would agree that the average citizen does not need access to fully-automatic weapons.

You're probably right. So what? Most people would probably agree also that you don't need a house as big as the one you live in, or a car as powerful as the one you drive. Your answer to them would be the same as mine - my rights are not subject to your approval.

You have appointed yourself to a position above the king by judging it “bad”.

Not quite. What SA and I, among many others, have done is to "appoint" ourselves equal to the king. The king, whomever he may be and however he may be selected, has no rightful authority to stop me from owning machine guns or you from living in a big house.

Accepted responsibility for their actions.

Again, why would I be morally required to willingly accept punishment for something that is not wrong?

That is the essence of civil disobedience. That is the most (perhaps the only) honorable response to an unjust law.

<ahem> WHY?

We might be able to tell a good law from a bad law, but it's ultimately not for us to make that determination.

May your chains rest lightly upon you.

you're insinuating that the police have nothing better to do than look for an excuse to arrest people whether a crime was committed or not.

All too often that is the case.

UNTIL they are changed you either abide by them or take the penalty like a grownup.

Nope, sorry. If an action is not morally wrong, but is illegal, and I do it anyway, explain to me why, morally, I have to take the punishment.

 

[Reddbecca]

Not quite. What SA and I, among many others, have done is to "appoint" ourselves equal to the king. The king, whomever he may be and however he may be selected, has no rightful authority to stop me from owning machine guns or you from living in a big house.

The problem is that you're not in a position of authority that the "king" is.

Again, why would I be morally required to willingly accept punishment for something that is not wrong?

Because what you did IS wrong and IS against the law. The difference between civil disobedience for a good reason, and what Olofson did, is that those who sat at the lunch counters took their punishment like men and accepted responsibility for their actions to show how unjust it was, and Olofson squirmed like a worm on a hook because he'd done something for no good reason at all.

WHY?

Because otherwise you're just breaking the law because it feels good, because that's how you get your kicks in, because it just goes to show that you're a rebel and that the law doesn't apply to you.

May your chains rest lightly upon you.

What authority to do you have in the matter? Absolutely none.

Nope, sorry. If an action is not morally wrong, but is illegal, and I do it anyway, explain to me why, morally, I have to take the punishment.

Because that's the responsible thing to do. You did something wrong to draw attention to the injustice of it all, and unless you accept the punishment then it was for no reason.

 

[H088]

Im still loling at the people defending the ATF, I guess everyone should sit down and role over, no matter what they say, even if no law was even broken.

 

[DRZinn]

The problem is that you're not in a position of authority that the "king" is.

The point is that I don't need to be in a "position of authority" to rule myself and run my own affairs.

Because what you did IS wrong and IS against the law.

So if something is against the law than it is wrong? Is that your assertion? Because if so we have nothing further to discuss. If not, than that statement made no sense because we're speaking specifically about an action that is NOT wrong but IS against the law.

those who sat at the lunch counters took their punishment like men and accepted responsibility for their actions to show how unjust it was

Why must I submit to injustice? You still have not explained that. According to you I must submit either by abiding by the unjust law or willingly taking my punishment for it. Thus you are in the position of asserting that the only moral option is submission to unjust authority.

Olofson squirmed like a worm on a hook because he'd done something for no good reason at all.

And who are you to decide whether a reason is good or not? Either he harmed someone or he did not. If not (which is the case whether or not he deliberately modified the rifle into a machine gun), how can he possibly be wrong? Because it's the law? See above.

Because otherwise you're just breaking the law because it feels good, because that's how you get your kicks in, because it just goes to show that you're a rebel and that the law doesn't apply to you.

How about none of the above? How about simply willfully disregarding the law because it is unjust? The are many illegal activities that are not morally wrong that I still do not engage in. There are other illegal activities that are not morally wrong that I do engage in. Put simply, I do not do things that are wrong, and I do do things that are not wrong if the mood strikes me, with very little regard for what someone else wants me to do or refrain from doing.

You did something wrong to draw attention to the injustice of it all, and unless you accept the punishment then it was for no reason.

"I" (putting myself in the position of David Olofson, which is what you seem to have done here) did something that was NOT wrong, but happened to be illegal. "I" did it not to draw attention to anything at all, but simply because I wanted to. The law is of no consequence in the rightness or wrongness of any action.

What authority to do you have in the matter? Absolutely none.

I claim no authority over anyone else's life or actions. I cede none over my own.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Everyone in this thread needs to check out Zedicus' thread on the case facts found here:


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=375570


A lot of the nonsense of this thread would have been rendered unnecessary.

 

[HK G3]

I think the point everyone in the SA camp is missing is that the NFA is THE LAW.

If you want to repeal a law, you voice your beliefs, and you organize to appeal the law. If Mr. Olofson wanted to see this law appealed, and was truly the political martyr that people are making him out to be, then why didn't he assemble the illegal weapon on the DC mall in plain view of the public, after declaring his intent to do so, and why he intended to do so?

No, all he did was selfishly picked and chose what laws he would follow, and the NFA was not one of the laws he chose to follow. He turned himself in and is accepting the responsibility for his actions. End of story.

I think the NFA act is a decent law, and it helps curb crime. We don't see anymore Bonnie and Clydes running around gunning up banks anymore, do we? The '68 GCA and the '86 GOPA, however, I'd like to see repealed.

At any rate, the BATFE blocked a lot of the defense' case, which should be the issue being debated here, not whether or not we should be able to break laws willy nilly because we "feel" they are bad.

 

[Aaron Staub]

DRZinn- The quote of mine which you took out of context was in response to Sans Authoritas invoking Aquinas with the position that we need not follow laws which do not conform to right reason. I noted that what conforms to "right reason" may vary from person to person, and thus his argument devolves into nothing more than "I should be allowed to ignore this law because I personally happen to feel it unfair." Your extrapolation from there puts me into a position which may or may not be true.

I can disagree with the way a man presents an argument without disagreeing with his conclusion.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

HK G3 wrote:

I think the point everyone in the SA camp is missing is that the NFA is THE LAW.

Unless a law is based on right reason, it is merely something that a violent man or violent group of men arbitrarily say you must do, lest you suffer violence. Because they say so. No more, no less.

In other words, it's not a law. It's not a dictate of reason. It's an arbitrary command: an ultimatum of violence. It is an unjust command, at that.

Some of you are all right with people enforcing unjust commands. You see no difference between "authority" and "force." Force equals authority, to you. Might makes right. The majority may use violence because they are the majority and make the rules, no matter if the rules are based even loosely on the principles of justice or morality. The majority is always right, and even when they are not, you must follow along. Where do you draw the line? You don't ever draw the line. That's why cattle cars carry innocent men to be shoveled into furnaces, and why people who share your logic defend their atrocious actions by saying, "The government made the rules, and I was just enforcing the rules. I was just following orders." And violence to impose your arbitrary will on someone else is morally acceptable in your book. Bless your hearts. You are not my countrymen.


Aaron Staub wrote:

I noted that what conforms to "right reason" may vary from person to person, and thus his argument devolves into nothing more than "I should be allowed to ignore this law because I personally happen to feel it unfair." . . . I can disagree with the way a man presents an argument without disagreeing with his conclusion.

Aaron Staub, I will put my theory on this very simply and bluntly: do you think you have the right to initiate violence against another man? Yes or no?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[JohnKSa]

Everyone in this thread needs to check out Zedicus' thread on the case facts found here:

I think everyone needs to read the original ar15.com thread.

My take was not the same as Zedicus'.

When reading the thread you have to remember that the thread is only one side of the story, told by the person being prosecuted.

I also thought that the BATF was overstepping its bounds but one of Olofson's posts changed my mind for me. He stated that his primary defense was going to be that the Feds had no jurisdiction and that he thought it would work because he'd used that tactic before in Federal court.

By the way, another source I found indicated that Olofson had a previous weapons related conviction and was reprimanded during his military service for "corrupting military computers" and "possibly releasing sensitive information to militia groups".

I'm not a big BATF fan, but this particular case isn't one I'd pick to demonstrate the problems with the agency...