slam fires and machine guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Soundtrackzz

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
108
Location
Harrisonburg VA. Louisville KY
Hey guys. By now we've all heard about David Olofson and how he is being wrongly imprisoned. What happend was that a brand of ammunition that has sensitive primers was used and his AR-15 shot two rounds. What i want to know is whether reloaded ammunition that accidently slam fires turns you semi-auto into a machine gun?

Thanks
 
Not unless you also have M16 parts in your gun, like Olofson did.
Click to expand...
Actualy that is just proof of more wrong doing in court.

Under the law it does appear any firearm that fires more than once per pull of the trigger is a machinegun.
They just have to make a case against you, and you get to argue it.
So if they mention you have parts that go to a full auto firearm (even if technicaly no different than a semi auto part) it helps thier case against you.
Saying you have parts from a full auto firearm even if they are not involved in the reason for the extra discharges adds more credibility that you are an evil doer, because it makes it sound to an ignorant jury or court like you are even more responsible for it.

If you fired several mags of ammunition rapidly, it got so hot that the rounds began to cook off as soon as they were put into the chamber, and you let off a full auto burst, you could be charged. Someone has to be present to charge you, and you still get your chance to argue your case in court.
They will say things to make you seem even more at fault. Your side will say things that show you did nothing wrong.

A jury will decide who is right.

If the jury is a handpicked bunch of idiots, it could still turn out bad for you.
 
the thread is about slam fires, not m16 parts. Thats a whole seperate issue. Whether a AR becomes a machine gun when the FACTORY installs m16 parts is a whole other can of worms that falls outside the scope of this thread
 
the thread is about slam fires, not m16 parts.
Click to expand...
Slamfires qualify the firearm as a machinegun if witnessed and you are charged for it. You will then have your opportunity to spend a fortune and tell your side of why it was not a machinegun before becoming a felon or doing time.
It shouldn't ever happen to you, but if it does it qualifies under the policy. One pull of the trigger fires more than one round. I don't think it says anything about intentional design.


Thats a whole seperate issue. Whether a AR becomes a machine gun when the FACTORY installs m16 parts is a whole other can of worms that falls outside the scope of this thread
Click to expand...
Well that is your opinion, the federal prosecutor may feel they are exactly the same thing: two firearms firing more than once per trigger pull in felony violation of federal law, and may even cite such a case as case law for references when convincing the jury the charges are valid and showing similar convictions.
Convictions that were upheld even when a firearm would not fire more than one round per trigger pull until agents tried thier very best to create the ideal situations to accomplish that, with special ammunition, primers, etc.

I think you could easily show the simularities of a case where they could not get a firearm to fire full auto until using special primers, and your case where they could not get your rifle to fire full auto again without using special primers.
A good prosecutor could show the jury they are in fact the exact same case.

They would video tap your rifle firing full auto under such conditions and present that in court.
Most jurors would know nothing about primers, various primers positions and seating and what caused things.
You bringin people in to explain it would appear to be trying to get off on a technical argument even though you clearly were in violation of the law.

Jurors knowing little or nothing about firearms would be more influenced by the video taped recreation in the ATF lab of your weapon shooting in full auto. Firing in full auto in clear violation of the law.
 
What i want to know is whether reloaded ammunition that accidently slam fires turns you semi-auto into a machine gun?
Click to expand...
Seems like that would be a defective ammunition problem since the gun is not designed to do that and can not be reproduced with in-spec ammo. If it were ruled as such, i'm sure the ATF could load up a bunch of ammo with super sensitive primers and call any gun with a floating firing pin a MG.
 
Seems like that would be a defective ammunition problem since the gun is not designed to do that and can not be reproduced with in-spec ammo. If it were ruled as such, i'm sure the ATF could load up a bunch of ammo with super sensitive primers and call any gun with a floating firing pin a MG.
Click to expand...

And given the opportunity and the right political climate, the ATF will do just that.
 
If you are then what cases do you cite?
Click to expand...

Every case where they refused to disclose or allow witnesses to view/examine their testing procedures for determining whether a semi auto firearm is actually a machine gun, which includes the Olofson case.
 
the thread is about slam fires, not m16 parts. Thats a whole seperate issue.
Click to expand...

No its not. The two are related.

Basically what i glean from all these posts is that reloading ammo has the potential to get you a felony
Click to expand...

You started this thread about soft primers in the context of Olofsons gun. And in the contect of Olofsons gun...you know, with the M16 parts and all...soft primers would be a problem. If you don't have M16 parts in your gun, soft primers are not going to be a problem.
 
So if you reload are you going to still do it? Please state your reasons
Click to expand...

I refuse to be intimidated.

One thing that I haven't seen clearly stated about the Olofson case: he wasn't convicted of possessing an illegal machine gun, he was convicted of transferring one. There is precedent which states a malfunctioning semi-auto is not illegal to possess. The prosecutor in Olofson's case argued otherwise, but it is not clear to me that the ATF can successfully prosecute for mere possession of a semi-auto rifle which slam-fires. Yes, it is legally dangerous, but I don't think we've seen the final word here.

So, be careful and ensure that your semi-auto firearms are in good working condition, especially before selling or otherwise transferring them.

It's a sad state of affairs. Frankly, considering how a federal indictment (never mind conviction) essentially destroys a person's life, I'm surprised that people convicted for such ridiculous "crimes" don't simply go postal.
 
If you don't have M16 parts in your gun, soft primers are not going to be a problem.
Click to expand...
The violation of law was not about m16 parts, those were just extra details. The case was about a firearm that fired more than one round per pull of the triggger.
If a firearm without parts that could be demonized fired a full auto burst in front of LEO that performed an arrest, soft or unseated primers could be used to recreate the exact same thing in the exact same way to prove the exact same violation of the law.

The only difference would be m16 parts could not be cited as something evil that was done in arguments.
Instead creating full auto ammunition could be cited as the evil wrong doing that contributed to the violation of law.

They can be the same thing, since the same violation of the law occured. Citations from one case can be used to show case law relating to the other.
 
okay i see your point. Since we are on the subject of parts: are parts that are copied from an M16 and made to work in a semi-auto AR the problem? or does the ATF only have a problem with you if you use parts from a real mil-spec M16?
 
The issue is whether the firearm fires more than one round per pull of the trigger.

All other issues are merely what is used to discredit you further in court. Whether that is parts from a firearm they can demonize, or handloaded ammo they can demonize etc
The only point they are trying to make to the jury is not only did you violate the law, but you contributed to that violation of the law even further by creating the situation.

So you not only violated the law, but it was violated as a result of your actions, even if unintentional, showing further criminal negligence.

They will make that point with the exclamation point being the demonstration of the ATF firing your firearm in full auto in a video shown to the court. They can get practicly any firearm to fire full auto with enough tinkering and special ammunition, so that such a video will exist and be presented is a certainty.
As General Geoff mentioned they also can then keep the methods used to get it to fire full auto a secret in court so that has no bearing on the case and your side cannot even argue that point without being held in contempt.
 
Zoogster - the issue is the parts. Read the NFA and the statutory definition of a machinegun, paying especial attention to the language regarding a "part" or "parts". Moreover, withthe M16 fire control parts in a gun as Olofson had, you can create a situation where the hammer will drop prematurely, riding he bolt home. Add soft primers to the mix and you've got a problem. Without those parts, its not going to happen, absent something malfunctionnig in the gun. And if its a pure malfunction due to worn or broken parts (and not M16 parts) then were dealing with a far different outcome than was had in Olofson (US v. Staples)
 
What?!

MGShaggy.... FACT: It took the BATgoons 400 + rounds to reproduce the slamfire. And that is a very conservative estimate.
A TRUE machinegun fires automatic EVERY time.. Without fail!
Olofson never had a machinegun... PERIOD..

"Surrounded by coppertops"
Click to expand...
 
Taprack - Read the statute. The ability to fire more than one round per pull of the trigger is just part of it; a machinegun can also be found in just a handful of parts, or even just a single part which isn't a receiver. They still could probably have made a winning case against Olofson without firing off those 400rds, just based upon the language in the statute itself. Getting it to fire off more than one round was just running up an already winning score for a bigger spread.
 
Last edited:
What i want to know is whether reloaded ammunition that accidently slam fires turns you semi-auto into a machine gun?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. What the Olofson case has shown us is that if they want to nail you, they're going to nail you. They'll bend the evidence to suit them.
 
the thread is about slam fires, not m16 parts. Thats a whole seperate issue. Whether a AR becomes a machine gun when the FACTORY installs m16 parts is a whole other can of worms that falls outside the scope of this thread
Click to expand...

Soundtrackz, a point can be made that if you have a standard AR/M4 vs a AR/M4 with M-16 bolt carriers and M4 chambers and feed ramps, a jury may be swayed to believe a prosecuter that slam fires are not an accident...
 
Hey MGShaggy: How would you like some thug to come to YOUR house, take your semi-auto rifles and FORCE a malf? ,
He had NO Auto parts installed, MGS. Machineguns fire full-auto 100% of the time.
MGS: In the trial, ATF Agent Jody Keeku was put on the stand and upon questioning, they found her to be quite incompetent about gun knowledge and could not 'gun talk' her way out of a wet paper bag.

Is this who you want to be your accuser? Do you actually trust this band of lying goons? Sounds to me like you do, and it's very disturbing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
To Be Or Not To Be ... A Machine Gun?
Replies
6
Views
575
SDC
S
S
  • Locked
US v Olofson Update 1/22/09 (AR-15 malfunction = MG case)
Replies
4
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
A
  • Locked
Slam Firing
Replies
12
Views
731
Slamfire
Slamfire
T
  • Locked
Question about machine guns.
Replies
16
Views
915
saltydog
saltydog
H
  • Locked
Recent Federal Case (Merged with " Rifle malfunction= prosecution?")
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
164
Views
13K
alan
A
Back
Top