Owner of broken rifle surrenders for 30-month sentence

[Sans Authoritas]

As to china strapping down women and doing the deed =MY WIFE IS CHINESE =HAS 4 SISTERS EACH HAS A GIRL BABY AND SIS #2 HAS 2Girls BRO HAS A BOY! and NO one sterilized anyone !
Country people can have 2 kids city people can have 1 --Or pay the fine --!
And beleave me they need to reduce the population because they will soon have every inch of there earth covered with people
Im sorry for the out burst==It cranks me off when I hear outright lies spread as truth -

NPR, against China and abortion? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9766870

Time Magazine all of a sudden "pro-life?" and "making up lies?" http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1615936,00.html

CNN, of all companies?
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/07/19/taiwan.china.abortion/

Aye. No forced abortions in China happening as a practical policy. And the Soviet Constitution protected everyone's freedom of speech and religion, too.

I'm talking about bad ideas and their manifestations of suffering and death, no matter what the manifestation may be.

What people allow there Sisters /Mothers/ Wives /Girl friends to be Strapped down --DUDE chinese people are just like you and me !

Are you unfamiliar with the 20th Century? Every race and culture has allowed horrible atrocities to be done by individuals in government. They often helped! Yes, even the Soviets starving the Ukranians were people like you and me. Yes, even the Hungarian AVO officers shoving glass pipettes up certain anatomical parts of their countrymen and shattering them were people like you and me. Even the Rwandans chopping off the breasts of lactating women so their children would starve were people like you and me.

Some of us, however, follow more than "the law," or, "the government." We follow what is just. And the two are not always, or even usually synonymous. Especially in this twisted day and age.

Tyrannical, genocidal regimes don't spring directly forth from the sixth circle of the bowels of hell, with thousands of red-eyed demons wearing jackboots doing their work. Such a regime must first have a society that embraces certain ideas. Then, all sorts of "crimes" are created, and the "criminals" are arrested as a means of making theirs a "safe and secure" country.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Reddbecca]

SA-

Shut up already. We can't afford to have anti-government, anti-law extremists like you spouting off about how every single law is unconstitutional and should be immediately and forever revoked from the books. Yes, that's technically true, but you're never, ever going to find a court that's willing to agree with you on this, so just shut up and deal with it.

To me your name screams "down with authorities" and "repeal the government". People like you hurt our cause and make us all look like unreasonable nuts who're unwilling to play well with others.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

You're right. Let's all stay quiet and be supportive of what is happening. Maintain silence and reverence for the enforcers of the law, after a non-violent man breaks a statute, hurts no one, and goes to prison for his "crime." Because that's the American way. Why, if we don't like it, why don't we move to China?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Reddbecca]

SA-

I take it that you, in the "spirit of the Constitution" being the supreme law of the land, have already cut down your shotgun barrels to -18" lengths, converted all your rifles to fully-automatic light machineguns, have attached buttstocks to all of your handguns, and have failed to register any of them with the BATFE as per specified by the 1934 NFA?

If you haven't done this then you're obviously content to follow the laws just like the rest of us.

 

[FCFC]

What does China have to do with David Olofson?

I'm not quite getting that...

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Redd,

First, the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. Men cannot make a "supreme law." They can only interpret the supreme law the best they can. And when their interpretation has proven unwise or unjust, it is time for them to change their view.

Next, has anything I've said indicated it was prudent to do any of the things you mentioned? I simply said it was just. I have, as a matter of fact, done none of those things. It doesn't mean that it would not be just to do so.

Is it hypocritical to say, "It is morally acceptable to ride a motorcycle," yet not ride a motorcycle myself?

On the other hand, is it hypocritical to say, "There is nothing intrinsically wrong with manufacturing a machine gun," yet approve of imprisoning a man who harmed no one?

The law says I may get drunk out of my skull, and let alcohol do my thinking for me. As well the law should allow. That doesn't mean I do not think it is wrong to do so. Nor does it mean that I am a hypocrite because I think there should be no law against getting drunk, but decide for myself not to not get drunk.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Poor East Texan]

Two things seem painfully obvious:

Olofson (sp?) is no Boy Scout.

But the ATF isn't exactly full of Boy Scouts either!

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?

 

[Reddbecca]

There are definitely guns I'd like to own more than anything. Examples include but aren't limited to:

M249 SAW
M16A4
H&K 416
H&K MP5
H&K MP5K
H&K G36
Glock 18

Add to that I'd like to be able to add a buttstock to a handgun or a forward handgrip, but I don't want to have to register with the government and pay transfer fees and wind up paying anywhere between $10,000 and $50,000 for a single exotic weapon. Unfortunately I'm not in a position to do anything but wait for more pro-gun candidates to be elected to office, and call in support of any pro-gun bill that benefits us best. That's all I'm able to do.

Truth be told there's only two pieces of gun control that I agree with:

1. Background checks
Why? Because somebody in the justice system keeps letting felons out too soon and too often. I don't want somebody who got probation for murder to be able to run out to Joe's World of Guns and be able to legally buy a brand new gun so he can kill again. And unfortunately that's the only way to keep the media from making things worse for us. In a way background checks protect gun dealers because at least they can show that nobody gets to buy a gun if they don't pass the background check.

2. Keeping mentally ill people from having a gun
Why? Because if you wear a tinfoil hat and believe that the space aliens are going to come and probe you and implant devices in your teeth, then you're obviously a very disturbed individual and prone to not thinking straight and are a danger to yourself and others around you.

 

[DRZinn]

Like it or not, the 1934 National Firearms Act IS the law and it MUST be followed, no matter how much we don't like it. If we don't then we're no better than the people we keep insisting be locked up and never let out.

Really? Doing something that violates no-one's rights in any way makes me the same as those who would see me in chains for doing so? Please explain further, because I somehow fail to see the connection.

 

[TAB]

Really? Doing something that violates no-one's rights in any way makes me the same as those who would see me in chains for doing so? Please explain further, because I somehow fail to see the connection.

so its ok to break the law as long as it does not hurt anyone?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

so its ok to break the law as long as it does not hurt anyone?

Tab, does the law exist for the sake of existing, or does it exist to protect the individual life, liberty and property of individual people from unjust aggression?

Are you religious? Christian? Did God not send an angel to break St. Peter out of prison? Did St. Paul not run from the police? Do you think St. Peter and Paul were not breaking the law? Do you not think Christians under Nero were breaking the law? Do you think any of them were doing something wrong by breaking "the law?"

A law either helps men, or it hurts them. A law can only help men by protecting them from force, fraud or coercion. Anything else is unjust.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[H088]

so its ok to break the law as long as it does not hurt anyone?

Just because somethings a law, doesn't automatically mean it should be followed.

 

[Luis Leon]

The original post made it seem like he was being arrested, tried and jailed for just having a malfunctioning semi-auto. But after reading the affidavit, especially the points outlined by Dumpster Baby. It seems like Olofson had been skating on thin ice for a while there. Filed bolt? M16 selector switch?

regards,

Luis Leon

 

[WinchesterAA]

Wow.. This thread is awesome. Great arguments from SA.

@Reddbecca - I disagree with your statements about background checks and the mentally ill.

The background check issue should not be an issue. Your typical felon probably doesn't go to the gunstore to get a gun anyway, he probably keeps the ones he owned before he was a felon at his friends house or his own house, or knows where to get one with no questions asked.

Furthermore, adding hoops to jump through to please the media is, IMO, completely ridiculous. Being afraid of how people will demonize certain things isn't something anyone should do. Moreover, people demonizing things are missing the point.

The point is - to place blame on an inanimate object.. Think about that for a minute.

Blame - to hold responsible. I hold you, Government model 1911 .45ACP, serial number xxxxxx, responsible for the shooting deaths of jane and her husband.

I don't think so..


As for the mentally ill.. There's far too many illnesses people are told they have to even REMOTELY endorse this rationale. Within the next 4 years, I suspect damn near anyone alive will be classified mentally ill. You know why? Cuz people are crazy.

Do you cry? No gun for you.
Do you laugh hysterically at something that's not really all that funny to everyone as a whole? No gun for you.
Do you not laugh or cry? No gun for you.
Do you not talk much? No gun for you.
Do you talk too much? No gun for you.
Do you try so hard to balance out all of the BS to appear normal so you can get a gun?

and god help you if you take meds for anything. No gun for you..

That's absurd, and that's what's looking like is gunna happen. It's a damned shame, cuz a lot of people I know take anti-depressants. They started taking them when they were young because their parents took them to a psychiatrist for any number of ignorant, and unresearched reasons. Never had an option, really. If it's made into law that people who take meds for depression or whatever can't buy a gun, so many people in this country will be without one for no reason other than bad parenting, gullibility, lack of self control, and a soggy handkerchief.


To reiterate my point and conclude with additional facts I'm much too tired to consider ATM, I'll say this..

Those who seek to kill, will kill. You take away their guns? They'll grab the next best thing. You take away that, they'll grab something else.

That's just what people do, that's what we started out doing, that's what we'll end up doing.


What I suggest is - Do away with the psychology/psychiatry departments, or atleast nullify their influence on society.
Make it harder to become a criminal. I'm sure the majority of the people on this board at one point or another in their life has committed a felony.

 

[jpr9954]

All I would say with regard to the affidavit is to remember just who submitted it. It was submitted by the ATF agent. Therefore, we MUST believe each and every word within it. It isn't like a Federal law enforcement officer would lie, plant evidence, or other assorted misdeeds.

Or you can be a skeptic like me and wonder why Len Savage, Olofson's expert witness, was not allowed to examine the AR in question?

I do believe that Olofson had a crappy attorney and that with a better attorney this would not have even gone to trial.

John

 

[HK G3]

Yes Sans, let's all just pick and choose which laws we do and don't like and then behave accordingly.

That won't undermine the fabric of society or anything...

 

[Aaron Staub]

Are you religious? Christian? Did God not send an angel to break St. Peter out of prison? Did St. Paul not run from the police? Do you think St. Peter and Paul were not breaking the law? Do you not think Christians under Nero were breaking the law? Do you think any of them were doing something wrong by breaking "the law?"

Stop it, really. I knew this argument would get there eventually. If you want to play that game, remember that it was Jesus who said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's"

The biblical model of authority in the New Testament is clear in showing that our fundamental obligation is to the authority of God, and then to the earthly governments we live under. Peter, Paul and the Christians under Nero were right disobey, because those civil authorities were trying to prevent the work of the Great Commission. The obligation to spread the gospel superseded the authority of the government. Such is not the case here. Not even close.

If the words of Jesus don't work for you, it was Peter that said "Honor all men, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king" (emphasis mine)

 

[FCFC]

The law says I may get drunk out of my skull, and let alcohol do my thinking for me. As well the law should allow. That doesn't mean I do not think it is wrong to do so. Nor does it mean that I am a hypocrite because I think there should be no law against getting drunk, but decide for myself not to not get drunk.

Alcohol doesn't do people's thinking for them. People who are drunk do drunken thinking for them.

I'm very amazed at the arguments by Sans Authoritas. His are rambling and conveniently flexible rationales for doing whatever people darn well please. Many of his premises are based in simplism and absolutism. These bases, I think, lead away from, not to, liberty.

 

[JohnBT]

Even so, they're entertaining.

John

 

[Hk91-762mm]

I found the Satement By His wife as to the treatment by the ATF-!

Candice Marie Olofson, deposes and states as follows:
On July 19th 2006 my house was raided by the ATF and local law enforcement I was at work at the time and
contactedb y someonefr om the A TF and askedi f it was alright if my kids were releasedf rom police custodyt o go
home Everett I remember trying to get infonnation from the person about what was going on and if the kids were
ok. She refused to tell me anything. I then left work promptly in a panic for the kids' safety.
When I reached home, I was not allowed near the house. There were many people taking an assortment of items
things from the house. The Berlin Police said that the kids were ok and with Everett. The neighbors were all
outside watching what was going on at my house. The police refused to say what was going on and would not let
me go into the house.
I picked up the kids at Everett's house in the country and drove the kids back home. We went to a neighbor's house
to wait for them to leave. It was quite a while before I saw David come home in a vehicle with 2 other women.
They pulled up to the house on the far side of the road and all got out The Blond haired women standing next to
David put her ann on his shoulder when he tried to cross the street They stood there for quite some time before they
entered the house. The police then came over to the neighbors to let me know we could go home.
On November 21, 2006 I arrived home with the kids and I noticed Ms. Keeku and another man with her parked next
to our driveway. As I approachedth e house,t hey were alreadyo ut of their vehicle and coming towardst he house. I
took the kids in and was by the door when Ms. Keeku forced her way into the back porch, uninvited and stated, "we
know David has more guns in the house. You had better turn them over or we will be taking DaVid into custody
again." At no time did I invite her into the house but asked her to leave. She and the other man just kept pushing
forward into the house until they were standing next to the kitchen nook. I told them that there were no other guns
in the house. They said that "they would again take David back in and that I had better turn everything over to them
or else". I statedt hat I only knew of somep arts of someg uns upstairsa nd Ms. Keeku said, "You'd better give them
over to us or we will needt o take you in also." I was afraid for the kids and feeling very threatenedb y the forceful
entry into my housea nd the repeatedt hreatso f arrest,s o I went upstairsa nd retrievedt he only parts I knew of. I
came back downstairs and placed them on the nook next to Ms. Keeku, but she said, "That can't be all." I said that
was it and the only other thing in the house was an old musket that they didn't take during the original search. She
told me to go and get it, which I did, but she said that she wasn't going to take it when I showed it to her.
Ms Keeku kept insisting that there were more fireanns in the house, but I again told her that there weren't I also
repeatedm y requestt hat both of them leave. I told them as they were leaving that what they did to the kids during
the original searchw as disgraceful. They knew that the kids were downstairsb y themselves( becausew e found out
that she was staking out the house for a little while prior to the raid) and when they broke into the house, they
pointed very large lnachine guns at Alexander (age 6) and Isabella (age 2). Ms. Keeku said "that they were the ATF
and could do whatever they think is necessary! I reminded her that these are very little kids with no weapons

 

[Reddbecca]

The background check issue should not be an issue. Your typical felon probably doesn't go to the gunstore to get a gun anyway, he probably keeps the ones he owned before he was a felon at his friends house or his own house, or knows where to get one with no questions asked.

Well I'm open to suggestions. Do you know any other way to ensure that honest people aren't unknowingly supplying guns to criminals for their crime? Because I sure don't.

There is something seriously wrong with the justice system. Dangerous individuals are serving only a couple of years of 10 and 20 year sentences and then being set free. Child rapists are being put on probation and left free to rape again simply because they're "too short for prison" and murderers are allowed to stay out of prison for being paralyzed in their last crime. We've got drug dealers who are given probation rather than a prison sentence and continue to peddle narcotics while on probation.

The justice system is doing nothing but leaving these animals in general population, and unless you have something set up that will tell you the difference between them and us, like some kind of checklist of all the latest and greatest offenders, then these scumbags are gonna be able to get guns as legally as the next person.

As for the mentally ill.. There's far too many illnesses people are told they have to even REMOTELY endorse this rationale. Within the next 4 years, I suspect damn near anyone alive will be classified mentally ill. You know why? Cuz people are crazy.

I'm talking about serious mental illnesses, the kind that really DO make somebody a danger to everyone around them, like those of the VT killer. Because we all saw what he was capable of.

 

[DRZinn]

I'm very amazed at the arguments by Sans Authoritas. His are rambling and conveniently flexible rationales for doing whatever people darn well please. Many of his premises are based in simplism [sic] and absolutism. These bases, I think, lead away from, not to, liberty.

Well, I can't speak for him, really, but I'm for doing whatever you darn well please as long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights. And I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that.

Please tell me how allowing people to do whatever doesn't harm anyone else can lead away from liberty?

 

[FCFC]

Quote:
I'm very amazed at the arguments by Sans Authoritas. His are rambling and conveniently flexible rationales for doing whatever people darn well please. Many of his premises are based in simplism [sic] and absolutism. These bases, I think, lead away from, not to, liberty.

Well, I can't speak for him, really, ...

Right.

BTW, what's wrong with the word simplism? I thought it was well chosen, Doc.

 

[Reddbecca]

Please tell me how allowing people to do whatever doesn't harm anyone else can lead away from liberty?

You mean like taking money out of a dead guy's wallet since they don't need it anymore? Or maybe stealing a few thousand dollars from somebody who has several million dollars in savings so they're considerably more well off than the rest of us? Or maybe videotaping women showering or trying on clothes for your own private video collection?

Depending on what you want to do, somebody's going to be a victim even if they never get hurt.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

HK G3 wrote:

Yes Sans, let's all just pick and choose which laws we do and don't like and then behave accordingly.

That won't undermine the fabric of society or anything...

Indeed. Those silly blacks back in the 1950's, breaking laws against sitting in white areas of restaurants, and drinking from white-only fountains. How dare they rend the fabric of society?

And remember those filthy criminals who broke the Fugitive Slave Act by smuggling slaves to Canada? No respect for the fabric of society.

If "societal fabric" is held together by laws against things that don't hurt anyone, societal fabric needs to be torn up and hemmed in until it starts resembling a garment that is suited to actually protecting the dignity of human nature, and stops resembling a strait jacket.

Society is held together by voluntary, mutually beneficial acts. Not laws against things that do not harm others.

-Sans Authoritas