slam fires and machine guns

[Meowhead]

This makes me sick.

Not only is the ATF openly hostile to gun owners, they're backed by legislation worded so vaguely it can be stretched to ridiculous extremes. Whoever said 'if they want to nail you they will' is right. I mean..anyone remember the piece of string the ATF once classified as a machine gun? Piece of string. With a loop at each end. Toss in an SKS rifle, M1 carbine, anything with a reciprocating bolt handle and, according to the relevant legislation, you've got a machine gun.

 

[taprackbang]

Not only is the ATF openly hostile to gun owners, they're backed by legislation worded so vaguely it can be stretched to ridiculous extremes.

That is the truth, Meowhead. Hardly 'Propaganda', as some ludicrously propose.

 

[ctdonath]

anyone remember the piece of string

They're mandated to prosecute 922(o) & NFA violations, do so to the fullest extent, and thus found themselves in the position of having to prosecute someone for what was plainly a violation thereof, even though the offending component was a friggin' shoelace thanks to some idiot's ingenuity. Sometimes following rules and established process leads to rediculous results, but such is law. At least give 'em credit for recinding the opinion.

 

[ebd10]

And in this case, there is: if, under any condition, more than one round is fired for one trigger pull, it's a MG by law. There is no "...unless it's a 1-in-10,000 case, or obviously a malfunction, or exotic ammo is used, or...".

There's a HUGE difference between legislation and test methodology. Exotic ammo? What's the definition of exotic ammo? A 1 in 10000 case? Are there exceptions? If so, what are they? What is an "obvious malfunction?" In my opinion, any rifle that's had thousands of rounds run through it with no trouble, and then doubles when soft primered ammo is fired in it, has malfunctioned. The ATF thinks otherwise. However, without any objective parameters with which to judge, the only difference between their opinion and mine is the number of guns they have to back up their opinion.

The term shall
also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed
and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed
and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any
combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled

What if there are parts that are interchangeable with a machinegun? Is there a percentage of parts that would constitute a machinegun? If so, what is the acceptable percentage?

See what I mean? There are cases in which the ATF has used zip ties, shoestrings, epoxy, and other materials not included on the original firearm and "restored" a machinegun. THAT is why published methods and objective testing is important. Otherwise, the ATF can do anything they want to in order to come up with "proof"

 

[RancidSumo]

So on a related topic, does holding the trigger down and pumping the action on an old shotgun turn it into a machine gun? Or in that case is the pump considered the trigger?

 

[Meowhead]

At least give 'em credit for recinding the opinion.

No.
Because that's only one example of their capricious bull****. They're not only supported by stupid laws but MAKING them, in their everchanging definitions of what a machine gun is, an assault rifle is, and so on. Then, once it's been decided, there's never a guarantee some bureaucrat won't change his mind and make your gun evil contraband with the stroke of a pen.

While I'm ranting..what about the ban on open-bolt semiautomatics? Isn't that entirely the ATF's doing, because such guns are too easy to convert to full auto? Then what about the M1 Garand, the SKS, the M1 Carbine, and anything else with fixed bolt handle? I can't imagine an easier way to convert something to full auto than by tying string around some external parts.

 

[Jeff White]

Because that's only one example of their capricious bull****. They're not only supported by stupid laws but MAKING them, in their everchanging definitions of what a machine gun is, an assault rifle is, and so on. Then, once it's been decided, there's never a guarantee some bureaucrat won't change his mind and make your gun evil contraband with the stroke of a pen.

If you don't want a bureaucrat changing laws with the stroke of a pen, I suggest you get your congressman to write and pass a laws that actually spell out what is legal or illegal instead of giving that power to the head of an executive branch agency. This doesn't only happen in firearms law, but with almost everything the federal government regulates.

Jeff

 

[ebd10]

If you don't want a bureaucrat changing laws with the stroke of a pen, I suggest you get your congressman to write and pass a laws that actually spell out what is legal or illegal instead of giving that power to the head of an executive branch agency.

There it is. Open carry truth.

 

[Meowhead]

If you don't want a bureaucrat changing laws with the stroke of a pen, I suggest you get your congressman to write and pass a laws that actually spell out what is legal or illegal instead of giving that power to the head of an executive branch agency. This doesn't only happen in firearms law, but with almost everything the federal government regulates.

Absolutely true.
All I'm really doing here is ranting and complaining about the sad state of things, so I'll stop.

 

[ctdonath]

There's a HUGE difference between legislation and test methodology.

Not really. Legislation defines what X is and whether it's legal; if a test gets something to fit the legal definition of X, then it is legally X - no matter what the test entailed.

Exotic ammo? What's the definition of exotic ammo?

Presumably something that is exceptionally rare, such as ammo with primers so soft that the manufacturer refuses to deliver on grounds of extreme safety hazard, requiring the BATFE to come pick it up "in person".
Since the law does not provide an exemption for "exotic ammo" or anything else nonstandard, clever, tricky, or whatever, the BATFE is free (nay, feels obligated) to put ultrasenstive-primer ammo in and see what happens after a few thousand attempts.

A 1 in 10000 case? Are there exceptions?

The law, as written, does not given an exception - PERIOD. Fire twice with one trigger pull, it's a MG. End of story, judge approves jury's conviction verdict. There are no exceptions. As someone wiser put it, "the law is an ass".

What is an "obvious malfunction?" In my opinion, any rifle that's had thousands of rounds run through it with no trouble, and then doubles when soft primered ammo is fired in it, has malfunctioned.

I agree. Unfortunately, the law does not allow exemptions for malfunctions.
Your opinion doesn't matter in this case, nor does mine. Congress' opinion DOES matter, as they wrote the law. That's what the law says, that's what the BATFE strains the limits of, and that's what the judges rule on.

Don't like it? get the federal definition of "machinegun" overturned. Until then, anyone who has a semi-auto with a tendency to "double" faces 10 years in prison if they let anyone else touch it.

FWIW:
- In DC, a semi-automatic with detachable magazine is a machinegun.
- In NY, a rifle is not a firearm.
- In WA, you can own a suppressor but cannot not use it.
Inane absurdities in law are not uncommon.

 

[ebd10]

We're talking apples and oranges. You're coming at it from a legal perspective and I'm coming at it from a technical perspective. In my job as a Quality Assurance Tech, when there is a failure of an item, I have to show what the specifications for the item are at present, what the acceptable deviations from spec are, and how the item went outside of spec. I can't just arbitrarily decide that something failed due to some amorphous Magic 8 Ball definition written by lawyers. The bottom line (for me) is that the ATF has gotten away with using everything from fabricated parts to Rube Goldberg devices to prosecute people for owning an otherwise legal firearm.

The whole point of having a published test method is to avoid subjective opinion in favor of objective empirical evidence. ATF doesn't have it and doesn't want it.

 

[alsaqr]

I have been firing semi-automatic military guns form many different countries for nearly 60 years. I have never had a slam fire. If you are having slamfires your re-loaded ammo is screwed up or your gun is not properly maintained.

 

[brickeyee]

In my job as a Quality Assurance Tech, when there is a failure of an item, I have to show what the specifications for the item are at present, what the acceptable deviations from spec are, and how the item went outside of spec.

The "spec" is more than one round for a single pull of the trigger.
There are NOT standards folks use to try and get around the law.
They do anything they can think of.
How many 'broken' weapons would show up if a blanket exception existed?
I can easily 'break' a 1911 and it will double, or even go full auto.
If I give it to you is it just a 'defective gun'?


Purposely putting parts in a gun that allows it to have a hammer follow and fire can turn it into a machine gun under the law.

When you run close to the edge, expect to attract attention.
Make a mistake and you can get nailed.

 

[ebd10]

The "spec" is more than one round for a single pull of the trigger.

Again, too broad of an interpretation. As the agent on the stand said, if you fire a side by side shotgun and both barrels go off, you now own a machinegun.

There are NOT standards folks use to try and get around the law.
They do anything they can think of.

Really? Is there some epidemic of illegal modification shops that I'm unaware of? I mean, if someone is intentionally modifying a gun to make it full auto, and it can be proven that their modification is illegal, they're criminals. If someone owns a gun that malfunctions, that's a broken gun.

How many 'broken' weapons would show up if a blanket exception existed?

Just like the death penalty; I'd rather err on the side of preserving liberty.

I can easily 'break' a 1911 and it will double, or even go full auto.
If I give it to you is it just a 'defective gun'?

If you 'break' a gun, you've broken the law. If the parts wear out and the gun doubles or goes full-auto, you've got a broken gun. The hard part is proving intent. Here, too, I'd err on the side of liberty. More than that, did they inspoect the gun to see if the parts had worn out? Do they know when and how the parts wear? Without any objective standards, I guess we'll just have to take their word for it.

Purposely putting parts in a gun that allows it to have a hammer follow and fire can turn it into a machine gun under the law.

So, did Olofson install those parts or was the gun purchased with the parts installed? Was his intent to loan his buddy a machinegun? Did he even know that those parts were in there?

Again, most of those answers would be provided through publication of the test procedures and methods. That way, we could go to a section of the publication and say, "Ooops, he messed up" instead of taking the word of an ATF agent that may or may not know anything about firearms.

What amazes me is, in any other technical field, from boat covers to rocket motors, there are tests done for various aspects of the item. SOMEWHERE, there is always a printed test procedure. Moreover, the Federal Government has manuals and printed procedures for everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, from zippers to fighter jets, except testing firearms. Only the ATF gets away with arbitrarily deciding what is what without any objective test procedures, no printed manual as to what tests are to be run or what qualifies someone to test the firearm, and no oversight of the testing. I think Jeff White has it right; we need to force the legislature to reign these bozos in.

 

[Jeff White]

Was his intent to loan his buddy a machine gun? Did he even know that those parts were in there?

If you do a search for the other threads about this case, you'll find that he knew the parts were installed, knew the weapon would slam fire with the M16 selector in the auto position, told the friend he loaned it to about it and even offered to build the friend a weapon just like it. Hardly seems like he was entrapped or that the weapon just broke.

Jeff

 

[Soundtrackzz]

experts say that the friend was bribed by the ATF to say that. But who knows the truth

 

[ctdonath]

The truth is whether or not the gun in question did in fact contain all key M16 full-auto parts save for the auto-sear. If it did - an easily evaluated fact by simple informed inspection - then as Jeff keeps harping on the gun WILL in all likelyhood "double" if set to the third selector position (which no semi-auto AR15 should have).

While there certainly is additional objectionable intrigue in this case, don't let it obfuscate the core question: was the gun in question knowingly in a configuration known to "double"? If so, the defendant is screwed.

 

[Soundtrackzz]

WAS screwed. hes already in jail

 

[brickeyee]

Again, too broad of an interpretation. As the agent on the stand said, if you fire a side by side shotgun and both barrels go off, you now own a machinegun.

I posted the actual federal code in this thread.
If you do not like it you need to write your congresssritter and have the law modified.

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 27, Volume 3]
[Revised as of April 1, 2007]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 27CFR479.11]
[Page 88-91]
TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND FIREARMS
CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 479_MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS--Table
Subpart B_Definitions
Sec. 479.11 Meaning of terms.

Machine gun. Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can
be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without
manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall
also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed
and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed
and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any
combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such
parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

It is regretfully pretty black and white.
There have been cases in the federal system were a broken gun was NOT ruled a machine gun.
This was a lousy case from the get go.
The first judge finally recused himself after various shenanigans by the defendant.
He 'reserved his rights,' tried invalid jurisdiction arguments, and generally pissed off the judge.
Federal Court is not a place to fool around.
Once you make specious arguments the judge is going to look on your further arguments with a jaundiced eye.

His 'public defender' was probably not well versed in firearms law.
Maybe an appeal for ineffective counsel will get him somewhere, but after the junk about representing himself that may not even go very far.

 

[Jeff White]

WAS screwed. hes already in jail

I think the question here is; did the BATFE screw him or was it self inflicted? I think the known facts point towards a self inflicted screwing.

Jeff

 

[brickeyee]

I think the question here is; did the BATFE screw him or was it self inflicted? I think the known facts point towards a self inflicted screwing.

Having followed this thing most of the way, it appears to be a combination of both.
I have dealt with judges at a number of levels, and they all tend to get irritated if you waste the courts time.
While any one of them would gladly give the benefit of the doubt to an honest effort in their court, when you start doing stupid things their patience goes away quickly.

 

[Historic Arms LLC]

A couple of points to ponder.....

The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled that a malfunctioning firearm is NOT a machinegun. US v. Staples

Testing done in secret by ATF presented in US District Court, and the Defendant and his attorneys, etc. prevented from even touching said evidence. Under the 4th amendment your are guaranteed to examine evidence used against you. There are also federal rules that are unshakable and written that all US district Courts and Judges MUST obey. If for no other reason US v. Olofson will get kicked during appeal for that violation. Look for govt. to then seek cert from SCOTUS.

Congress has had HR 1791 [The Fairness in Firearms Testing Act] stuck in committee for 5 years. Still no standards, but everything done to it would have been video taped. If a Jury saw three weeks of experimentation for the results presented at trial, it would make an impact.

Your old double barrel goes boom and both barrel let fly with one "pull of the trigger" now they say that is a MG no excuses?

Any single action revolver with a firing pin on the hammer must be an MG, because with ammo that had thin soft primers, and heavy load with "fan the hammer" back when it pierces the primer?

Heck, here in Georgia it must have been popular back in the day, because State MG law says it has to fire more than six rounds per pull of the trigger...

City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. (1999):

"Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law for either of two independent reasons. First, it may fail to provide the kind of notice that will enable ordinary people to understand what conduct it prohibits; second, it may authorize and even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."


Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. (1983):

"We conclude the statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute."

Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. (1939):

"A fundamental precept of our justice system is that citizens may not be " at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." [about the statute in question]; "the terms it employs to indicate what it purports to denounce are so vague, indefinite and uncertain that it must be condemned as repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

 

[Ergosphere]

I think the question here is; did the BATFE screw him or was it self inflicted? I think the known facts point towards a self inflicted screwing.

I agree that Olofson did not help his case... but it is also very clear that BATFE is willing to screw people as well, and that they suffer no repercussions for it.

BATFE claimed that double barreled shotguns were machineguns. Given their interpretation of 27CFR479.11 and lack of testing standards, it's a fair conclusion that BATFE could turn virtually any semi-automatic firearm into a machinegun, simply by using extra-sensitive primers. The problem is, there is no rule or standard that prevents BATFE from testing firearms with non-standard ammunition which is designed to slam-fire.

Olofson did not present a competent defense, and yes he acted stupidly.
But the prosecution was also outrageous.

 

[RancidSumo]

Could anyone answer the question in post #81?

 

[Drgong]

I believe that the Pumping counts, but you never know with the ATF.