Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

US v Olofson Update 1/22/09 (AR-15 malfunction = MG case)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by spartywrx, Jan 22, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. spartywrx

    spartywrx Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    219
    Location:
    Rust Belt
    The case went before the 7th Circuit for Appeals today. The MP3 of the argument can be had here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/KD10POY2.mp3 (right click - save target as). Basically the 3 judge court will determine if the ATF's definition of automatic applies to what happened to Olofson's AR-15. Olofson's lawyer made a pretty good case that the gun is not automatic since the gun shot multiple rounds with one trigger, but stopped firing without exhausting its ammunition or releasing the trigger. Or that's what I heard in the argument, and i'm obviously biased. Also, I noted that the 3 judge panel did not seem to be very familiar with firearms at all.

    From what ar15.com said, an opinion will be released in 2-6 weeks.

    I couldn't post this for some reason in the correct thread so I started a new topic. Move if needed.
     
  2. Sam Adams

    Sam Adams Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,035
    Location:
    South Texas
    Why is the ATF's definition of machine gun dispositive? If someone is to be found criminally liable for violating a law, aren't the definitions of the particular acts constituting such a violation supposed to be in the law itself?

    This seems to be a case of a malfunctioning gun that was manufactured to be a semi-auto only.

    This all, of course, doesn't touch on the issue of why the fed.gov even has the authority to regulate or ban the existence or ownership of full autos - which I believe it does not.
     
  3. Gunnerpalace

    Gunnerpalace Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,092
    Location:
    Somewhere in Michigan
    So he did get one?

    That contributed to his loss, if the judge has no idea what the lawyers are all talking about, would not that be ground for a mistrial?
     
  4. spartywrx

    spartywrx Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    219
    Location:
    Rust Belt
    The ATF is arguing that the law be interpreted in a certain way. Its not their definition, its what Congress wrote. Its not like the ATF is making their own definitions up. Olofson's lawyer (I presume its a lawyer from the recording) is trying to convince the judges that the ATF has the wrong interpretation that a malfunction can cause an AR-15 to be classified as a MG
     
  5. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    19,627
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page