US v Olofson - Cliff Notes Version

Zedicus · Jul 5, 2008

Tom488 · Jul 5, 2008

Some points of clarification:

- Witness's name is Robert Kiernicki
- Police originally just took Kiernicki's name and info., and let him leave. After speaking with the local BATFE office, they were told to confiscate the rifle.
- BATFE FTB originally declared the rifle to be "just a rifle", as it only fired semi-auto. BATFE agent Keeku asked that the rifle be re-tested, this time with commercial .223 ammo, which has a softer primer. Then, the rifle hammer-followed, and fired automatically.
- The statement about a malfunctioning double-barrel shotgun being a machinegun was made by the AUSA, not the BATFE.

Overall, excellent job compiling a summary of the last, what, 18 months of this case.

Something else I want to clarify for those who haven't followed this case from the beginning, and may be a little confused (as I saw in the other thread). There are three versions of "the story" here:

Story 1, as told by the BATFE, says that an illegally-modified machinegun was loaned to Kiernicki, who fired it at the range, was discovered by the police, who turned it over to the BATFE, who prosecuted Olofson for transferring (but not manufacturing) an unregistered MG.

Story 2, as told by the defense, says that the AR-15 came from Oly Arms with some M16 components, and the BATFE at the time said this was OK. Due to wear, the AR-15 was experiencing a malfunction known as "hammer-follow", a highly dangerous condition that caused the rifle to fire more than one round per pull of the trigger. Defense argued that a previous case (US v Staples) said there must be INTENT to convert a firearm to a MG, and there was no intent here - it was simply a malfunction.

Story 3, as told by Olofson, was that when the rifle went from his hands to Kiernicki's, it had a DPMS AR-15 semi-auto FCG in it, which Olofson had replaced himself after the other DPMS FCG in the rifle wore, itself having been replaced by Olofson when the original Oly FCG started exhibiting signs of wear and malfunction. Somewhere between that time, and the time the Berlin PD discovered Kiernicki firing the rifle in "bursts", somebody swapped out the FCG with M15 parts. Whether Kiernicki did it on his own, or whether he was prompted to do so by others, is known only to Kiernicki.

So, why did defense go with story #2, and not story #3? I don't know. Maybe they felt they had a better shot at winning with #2 than #3. Maybe they thought #2 was less work for them, than #3 (these were PD's, after all). Maybe possibly pointing the finger at their own government (who pays their salaries) didn't sit too well with them.

For many reasons, I believe Mr. Olofson. It just doesn't make sense that he would modify his AR-15 in that way, knowing how dangerous it was. He certainly spent enough time with M16's and M4's to know that to operate properly, they needed an auto sear - not just an M16 FCG. I think he was a thorn in the backside of the local BATFE office, and they saw an opportunity to nail him - and nail him they did. Not only is he serving 2+ years in federal prison, and not only has he now lost his 2A rights forever, the BATFE now has a legal precedent established that ANY firearm that they can make fire more than one round per pull of the trigger can be considered a machinegun.

Think about that for a minute.... imagine you're no longer on someone's Christmas card list. They decide to confiscate your rifle, "just to check it out". During testing, they remove "something" (I won't say what - don't want to give anyone any ideas), and the rifle hammer-follows, and spits out two rounds. Guess what? You get to go to prison.

And don't tell me it can't happen. There's another thread over on ARFCOM about a guy in NC, who's neighbor heard him shooting his firearm, and called the cops, claiming he heard "automatic fire". The PD showed up with a BATFE agent, and asked the guy's girlfriend (who was the only one home at the time) if they could "look around". Being intimidated, she said "yes". They took his firearm, and sent it to the FTB to be tested. Fortunately, he wasn't on anyone's poop-list, so they returned the firearm (after something like 8-10 weeks, mind you), and said, "it's a semi-automatic". It could VERY easily have gone the other way, so don't think for a minute "Naw, that could never happen - not to ME".

Yes... yes, it can.

Don't Tread On Me · Jul 5, 2008

Thank you for compiling this.

Maybe this will help shut up all the idiotic government sycophants who want to witch-hunt this man without knowing all the facts. These people took the BATFE Agent's extremely biased affidavit and "ran with it" as concrete case-closed type proof. Which is why we have that ugly, illogical and shameful thread going on at the moment.

I'm not saying Olofson is clean. But we can clearly see the government is being predatory and unfair. That alone should bring their entire case under question. Maybe Olofson is shady, but that's irrelevant, all that matters is FACTS. And no such facts exist to corroborate the absurd allegations made. One of which is that he's an unlicensed manufacturer of firearms. Do you people realize that the BATFE's position is that every single AR-15 kit assembler is a FELON? That your garage workbench is a "manufacturing" center or station. That having 1,000 rounds is somehow indicative of something negative. That talking about the private sale of firearms through email correspondence is somehow dealing in firearms.

Do you people realize that by the BATFE's standards in this case, the entire THR Buy/Sell Firearm's forums are criminal in nature? And that THR private messages, emails and the such in selling firearms privately to people within your state is acting as an unlicensed dealer and that you are all FELONS????????

In America, we do not put people away because of railroading in kangaroo courts.

It is utterly outrageous that the BATFE and the Court prohibits independent inspection of the rifle. He has a right to challenge the evidence of the government. That is being denied.

If you notice, most of the nonsense demonizing Olofson are allegations. Very few are factual.

I'm saddened by the fact that so many Americans, particularly members of THR which I hold to a higher standard of reason, are so willing to accept the position of the government and of an agency that has clearly proved to be acting in a predatory and essentially unlawful manner in convicting Olofson.

H088 · Jul 5, 2008

Gotta love a government which persecutes its own soldiers, you also gotta love the people who support the government and help them in the proccess.......

Zedicus · Jul 5, 2008

If you notice, most of the nonsense demonizing Olofson are allegations. Very few are factual.

Only things I could find that were factual were trivial at best.

Jguy101 · Jul 5, 2008

After reading this, you know something's wrong with the country.

My God.

Zedicus · Jul 5, 2008

This Just Ripped my Guts out...

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/07/independence-day-message-from-olofsons.html

Friday, July 04, 2008

An Independence Day Message from the Olofson's

Yesterday was the hardest day of our lives, writing this, right now seems to be the second. We drove David, along with Larry Pratt of GOA, to the Sandstone institution yesterday. Larry’s presence, words of wisdom and comfort were invaluable. We would be faring a lot worse today if it would have not been for him – thank you Larry from the bottom of our hearts. We would ask all of you, if you can, to please support GOA in the defense of David for this unthinkable miscarriage of injustice. This conviction MUST be righted for ALL Americans, for David, and for the 2nd Amendment of America’s Constitution. With this present ruling, anyone who owns a firearm can be made guilty of owning a machine gun.

We just received a call from David early this AM. He is doing fine, so far. He did admit that he under estimated how badly all the people there are being gouged for everything they must buy. The $200 he took with him will not get him very far. I told him we would see the he gets his allotment of $300 for every mo. Please DO NOT send him any money. We will talk to a few people on how to handle that subject, and if there is something you all can do we will pass that information on. As an example David indicated he is getting a tooth ache and a small bottle, 24 pills, of ibuprofen cost him $7.

The few people he has talked to indicated that they are treated well - to which we replied: follow your new counsel’s advice. And we know his new representation has HIS best interests in mind, as opposed to his prior.

He did ask that we pass on his address for everyone, and please pass it on so everyone who wants to can write him:

David R. Olofson
08632089-K1
Federal Correctional Institute
PO Box 1000
Sandstone, MN 55072

David also indicated that there is no e-mail, so snail mail is the only option.

We hope everyone has a happier 4th, and please keep David in your prayers.

Dave & Pat Olofson

July 4th, the Anniversary of the berth of the USA, which after following this case, and several others, topped off by this message, I find myself thinking that "America" no-longer exists, nor has it for quite some time.

BHPshooter · Jul 5, 2008

Wow. I was totally ignorant of all of this.

Thanks, Zedicus, for all of that info.

Wes

kingpin008 · Jul 5, 2008

Jeezis, what a cluster-fork. I can't imagine how...hopeless Mr. Olofson and his family must feel right now.

This country, as great as it is....is really, really screwed up sometimes. The people responsible for this man being behind bars should be ashamed of themselves.

Don't Tread On Me · Jul 6, 2008

I'm wondering where all the people attacking "Sans Authoritas" and others in the locked thread about Olofson are to back up their arguments in this thread, where the original post has factual documents to verify or debunk them???

Seems that when proof is displayed, things go mysteriously quiet.

The truth has that effect. I don't favor confrontation or flame wars. The silence bears testimony in itself, and it is preferable to noise.

One thing I wonder about this case is who from the range called the police? I read it was a range officer, but not certain. What kind of rat is that person? Who would call the police if they heard or saw a double + jam? Talk about big brother society. Your own countrymen ready to drop a dime on you. Scary stuff. I by no means am suggesting that people ignore blatant illegal activity, however, this is one case where there's significant doubt about illegal activity and it should really be left up to the BATFE to go out and find the full-auto criminals themselves. Not to invite them to persecute a rifle malfunction. That's what happens when citizens participate in police-state activism and invite an over-zealous agency to get involved. People who are legally innocent go to prison due to jury ignorance of complex firearm issues and outrageous prosecution/BATFE bias in describing the weak evidence they have.

Shame.

JWarren · Jul 6, 2008

Unbelievable.

-- John

ProficientRifleman · Jul 6, 2008

David R. Olofson
08632089-K1
Federal Correctional Institute
PO Box 1000
Sandstone, MN 55072

So... write him a letter and tell him he has your support.

Reddbecca · Jul 6, 2008

All I said was that if Olofson really had illegally modified his gun, as the affidavit had stated, then it would've changed the entire story. It just grew out of hand from there.

Ignition Override · Jul 7, 2008

I would spend $10 right now if it will go into a fund to pay for a legal team to prove that this guy was a victim of a government out of control.

Another branches of the govt. has previously made random and arbitrary rulings to justify the existence of over-bloated bureaucratic power. It happened to a buddy of mine.

And I've only been a gun owner (in a practical sense) since last October.

Could a very select group organize such a fund?
A large group of people helped airshow pilot Bob Hoover win his Airman's Medical back years ago when two FAA 'twats' watched him at an airshow and decided that the FAA should be able to ground somebody if they wanted to. They even had a shrink exam created for the purpose. Some of you have seen Bob at airshows over many years. He shuts down both engines with high energy and then does either a loop or a roll, lands in his 'glider' and rolls out in front of the reviewing stand.

Let's clarify the point.
Knowing that career aerobatic pilot B. Hoover was helped in a different way by a large movement, despite that fact that no felony or other crime was involved, why not help the guy in prison in Minnesota with lots of resources? Innocent until proven guilty...Maybe the NRA is working on this, but how about a grass-roots campaign to truly expose to the light of day the slime which inhabits a law enforcement agency of the US government?

Macpherson · Jul 7, 2008

What I want to know is when is the appeal? Obviously this is a terrible situation for Mr. Olofson, but I could also see this turning into a big win, since sooner or later a higher court is going to look at this and :cuss:

. Ruling will be reversed, charges dropped, and Mr Olofson will be looking at a big fat check from the ATF. He should ask special agent Keeku to hand-deliver it :neener:

PaladinX13 · Jul 7, 2008

Seems like a rehash of Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994)... he'll prevail in court eventually on the legal issue. Issue isn't the law or government- which are mere tools of humans, just like another one we hold so dear- but their use and application. Demonization isn't particularly productive. Though press pressure can make the eventual sanctions (after Olofson's win) sting that much more if the stink strikes to their ability to enforce rather than some philosophical anti-law position of no meaning to them.

Zedicus · Jul 7, 2008

What I want to know is when is the appeal? Obviously this is a terrible situation for Mr. Olofson, but I could also see this turning into a big win, since sooner or later a higher court is going to look at this and . Ruling will be reversed, charges dropped, and Mr Olofson will be looking at a big fat check from the ATF. He should ask special agent Keeku to hand-deliver it

He (mr Olofson) said several times before that he will settle for nothing less than the Disbandment of the BATFE, he couldn't care less about money.

This was apparently the 3rd time the BATFE has gone after him, first time over some trumped up charges by a BATFE Snitch in the late 80's (case was dropped), second was over Legal Open Carry which was thrown out of court by the judge, and now this.

jaholder1971 · Jul 7, 2008

I'm wondering where all the people attacking "Sans Authoritas" and others in the locked thread about Olofson are to back up their arguments in this thread, where the original post has factual documents to verify or debunk them???

There are more than a few folks on this board who are really sick and tired of SA hijacking every thread and turning it into a soapbox for his anarchist drivel.

With that said: A bunch of what was posted in the locked thread didn't jive, like Olafson's selling of guns on Ebay. Ebay hasn't allowed gun sales on their site for years.

The letter of reprimand from a Major General to an enlisted threw up a big red flag for me. This is why they have Majors, LTC's and COL's for.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow · Jul 7, 2008

Fantastic summary; thank you, but here are the parts I'm having trouble with:

* BATFE Disallowed Defense Experts from examining the rifle except from a distance (approx 6 feet)
* BATFE Blocked Defense and Judge from Information that would have been beneficial to the Defense’s Case Claiming it Was “Privileged Tax Information” which It was Not
* BATFE Ignored a Federal Judge’s order to Produce Documents requested of them

The proper response is to object strenuously, file motions, requests for re-hearings, interlocutory appeals, etc. Did he just have a terrible lawyer, or what? Sure he's going to appeal as he should, but I'll just note that *IF* these facts are true as reported, then his appeal will be one of the easiest ever won. Because on the first one - preventing the defense from fully examining the rifle - that's a fundamental violation of the accused's rights - tantamount to refusing to let you confront the witnesses against you, a constitutional right. So if he doesn't win on appeal, that tells me that these facts are not being properly conveyed here.

Dumpster Baby · Jul 7, 2008

Knowing what the BATFE can and will do in cases like this, it's fundamentally suicidal to take an AR-15 with a 3 position selector and a known history of hammer following out to the range. Taking an SKS with a sticky firing pin and a history of slam firing out to the range is suicidal. Taking anything with a known history of doubling, slam firing, or hammer following out to the range is suicidal.

Olofson and friend are basically idiots, and got themselves into a totally preventable legal jam. They very foolishly invited The Man into their lives.

I hope the conviction is thrown out on appeal, for prosecutorial misconduct if nothing else. I hope that a valid firearm testing protocol comes out of this mess.

Tom488 · Jul 7, 2008

The proper response is to object strenuously, file motions, requests for re-hearings, interlocutory appeals, etc. Did he just have a terrible lawyer, or what?

Motions were filed... motions were denied. He had a public defender.

but I'll just note that *IF* these facts are true as reported

All the documents are posted in the 88-page thread over on ar15.com. Yes, they're true.

t's fundamentally suicidal to take an AR-15 with a 3 position selector and a known history of hammer following out to the range

It's only Kiernicki's testimony (that he mostly recanted on cross, by the way) that says Olofson told him about the 3rd position, and the fact that it jammed after firing in that position. Olofson maintains that he never told Kiernicki about a 3rd position, because when he transferred the rifle, it had a DPMS 2-position selector in it.

Again - don't make the mistake of taking everything the government has laid out at face value.

RPCVYemen · Jul 7, 2008

Motion to Compel was denied on claims by the BATFE ...

The pdf appears to a document dated 18 August 1980, about a request for transactions between 1935 and December 31st, 1935. What was the intent of the motion?

2nd Discovery Request (BATFE Ignored the first)

I am not a lawyer, and I don't quite understand the discovery phase. I thought that the judge could compel the revelation of documents by the prosecution (or the defense). If the judge decided that what was being requested was relevant, wouldn't the judge have compelled discovery? If the judge did not compel discovery, why not?

BATFE Disallowed Defense Experts from examining the rifle except from a distance (approx 6 feet)

What did the judge say about all that?

Mike

RPCVYemen · Jul 7, 2008

Knowing what the BATFE can and will do in cases like this, it's fundamentally suicidal to take an AR-15 with a 3 position selector and a known history of hammer following out to the range. Taking an SKS with a sticky firing pin and a history of slam firing out to the range is suicidal. Taking anything with a known history of doubling, slam firing, or hammer following out to the range is suicidal.

Actually, the case doesn't show that at all - Mr. Olofson was not convicted of manufacturing or possessing a machine gun. Even if he did not modify the weapon (which seems doubtful), once he knew that the weapon was capable of firing more than one round, he broke the law by transferring it to another person. The transfer was clearly not lending to a friend - Mr. Olofson repeatedly claims that he did not know "the kid" very well.

Mr. Olofson told Robert Kiernicki that the weapon would in fact fire in select fire mode - though it might jam after doing that. So there is no doubt that Mr. Olofson knew that the weapon was capable of firing in select fire mode.

The transfer is what got Mr. Olofson in trouble. So if you have a weapon that fires more than one round when the trigger is pulled, you need to get it repaired before you transfer it to someone else. Even if it's really the aliens from Area 51 who really put the M16 parts in it.

Mike

unspellable · Jul 7, 2008

Has it happened before?

It's my understanding that in the Waco case the government never allowed the defence or any one else to examine the so called "full auto" firearms.

mbt2001 · Jul 7, 2008

I didn't think that they could refuse the defense from examining the rifle... I mean, you have to be allowed to confront your accusor and the "rifle" in this case was as much an accusor as the BATFE.

US v Olofson - Cliff Notes Version

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member.

Member.

Member

Member