Malfunction = Machinegun = Arrest & Conviction [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Malfunction = Machinegun = Arrest & Conviction


MTPD
01-13-2008, 20:11
Drill instructor convicted after rifle jams

Guardsman guilty of illegally transferring 'machine gun' after firearm malfunctions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 13, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com


A drill instructor in the National Guard has been convicted in a Wisconsin federal court of illegally transferring a machine gun after a rifle he loaned to a student malfunctioned, setting off three shots before jamming.

The verdict of guilty on one count in the case against David Olofson was confirmed yesterday by the clerk's office in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

That means now that anyone whose weapon malfunctions is subject to charges of having or handling a banned gun, according to an expert witness who reports that the particular problem is a well-known malfunction and was even the subject of a recall from the manufacturer.


"If your semiautomatic rifle breaks or malfunctions you are now subject to prosecution. That is now a sad FACT. I guess we know now what Sen. Kennedy meant when he said he looked forward to working with [Acting Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director] Mike Sullivan on Gun control issues, after his committee approved him for full Senate vote," Len Savage, a weaponry expert who runs Historic Arms LLC, said in a blog.

"To those in the sporting culture who have derided 'black guns' and so-called 'assault weapons'; Your double barreled shotgun is now next up to be seized and you could possibly be prosecuted if the ATF can get it to 'fire more than once,'" he wrote in a blog run by Red's Trading Post.


"Hey, but don't worry," Savage said. "The people testing it have no procedures in writing and the testing will be in secret. Also if you know of information that proves YOUR innocence, maybe the ATF won't claim that it's tax information at your trial and prevent YOUR judge from viewing it."

He told an interview with Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership that Olofson had been instructing a man in the use of guns, and the student asked to borrow a rifle for some shooting practice.

"Mr. Olofson was nice enough to accommodate him," Savage said. So the student, Robert Kiernicki, went to a range and fired about 120 rounds. "He went to put in another magazine and the rifle shot three times, then jammed," Savage said.

A couple of police officers who also were at the ranged immediately approached him and started asking questions about the "automatic" fire, and he told them it was a borrowed weapon.

"Mr. Olofson, being a responsible person, went down to the police station and said, 'I'm in the National Guard. I know what a machine gun looks like. That's not it,'" Savage said.

But instead of having the issues resolve, Savage said, it got worse.

He reported that because of the malfunction, the rifle was seized and sent to the Firearm Technology Branch, the testing arm of the federal agency.

"The examined and test fired the rifle; then declared it to be 'just a rifle,'" Savage said. "You would think it would all be resolved at this point, this was merely the beginning."

He said the Special Agent in Charge, Jody Keeku, asked for a re-test and specified that the tests use "soft primered commercial ammunition."

"FTB has no standardized testing procedures, in fact it has no written procedures at all for testing firearms," Savage said. "They had no standard to stick to, and gleefully tried again. The results this time...'a machinegun.' ATF with a self-admitted 50 percent error rate pursued an indictment and Mr. Olofson was charged with 'Unlawful transfer of a machinegun.'. Not possession, not even Robert Kiernicki was charged with possession (who actually possessed the rifle), though the ATF paid Mr. Kiernicki 'an undisclosed amount of money' to testify against Mr. Olofson at trial," Savage said.

And then during the trial, the prosecution told the judge it would not provide some information defense lawyers felt would clear their client, Savage continued. That included the fact that the rifle's manufacturer, Olympic Arms, had been issued a recall notice for that very model in 1986 over an issue of guns inadvertently slipping into full automatic mode, if certain parts were worn or if certain ammunition was used.

Ryan Horsley, who posts the Red's Trading Post blog, said the results were "very concerning."

"Basically if your Ruger 10/22, Browning Citori Over and Under or Remington 11-87 malfunction and fire more than one round at a time; the ATF will now consider it a machine gun," he wrote.

He told WND he's had personal experience with guns that malfunction and fire more than one bullet. Even double-barreled shotguns, if both shells would be released at once, now could be considered machine guns and illegal, he said.

"This precedent is very dangerous," he said.

Defense attorneys in the Olofson case couldn't be reached immediately to determine whether an appeal would be pursued, but Savage noted the arguments by assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Hannstad, who handled the prosecution.

"Haanstad claimed the law does not exempt a malfunction. He claims that it states 'any weapon that shoots more than once without manual reloading, per function of the trigger is a machinegun.' To clarify when I was on the stand, I asked him, 'Are you saying if I take my Great Granddaddy's double barrel out and I pull one trigger and both barrels go off, it's a machinegun?' He went back to … 'any weapon that shoots…'" Savage said.

troy96
01-13-2008, 20:13
deja vu

PeterJasonMN
01-13-2008, 20:15
= Repost.


Here we go again, using WND as a sole-source.

Doc_Fuller
01-13-2008, 20:32
WTF Over!!!
-Doc

Sam Spade
01-13-2008, 20:33
The one piece of good news is that we can see who relies on what for information.

Oh, that and I saved a bunch of money by switching my car insurance.

MTPD
01-13-2008, 21:08
ADDITIONAL SOURCE, AS REQUESTED, quoting Len Savage-President
Historic Arms LLC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Len Savage: "Duck Hunters and Sportsman, You're the next target of the ATF!"

Acting ATF Director Michael J. Sullivan has taken the ATF to an all time low during a Federal trial this week, (US v. Olofson, Milwaukee Wisconsin). US District Judge, the Honorable Charles N. Clevert chastised Assistant US attorney Gregory J. Hannstad, for attempting to "Dupe the Defense" during the trial for attempting to use slight of hand to prevent me from testifying for Mr. Olofson.

Mike Sullivan and the ATF Duped the Federal District Court, and Judge Clevert. But this is nothing new!

Mr. Olofson, a Drill Instructor in the National Guard, was asked by Robert Kiernicki to teach him how to shoot a firearm. Olofson did and from time to time would let Mr. Kiernicki borrow his oldest AR-15 , go to a public range and target practice. He always returned the firearm and on his third time at the range after 120 rounds down range the rifle sputtered three times and jammed. The Law enforcement on the range swept in...

The rifle in question seized now by the ATF; It was sent to Firearm Technology Branch (FTB), the testing Arm of the BATFE. They examined and test fired the rifle; then declared it to be "just a rifle". You would think it would all be resolved at this point, this was merely the beginning. The Special Agent in Charge Jody Keeku asked FTB to re-test the firearm and this time use soft primered commercial ammunition.

FTB has no standardized testing procedures, in fact it has no written procedures at all for testing firearms. They had no standard to stick to, and gleefully tried again. The results this time..."a Machinegun". ATF with a self admitted 50% error rate pursued an indictment and Mr. Olofson was charged with "Unlawful transfer of a machinegun". Not possession, not even Robert Kiernicki was charged with possession (who actually possessed the rifle), though the ATF paid Mr. Kiernicki "an undisclosed amount of money" to testify against Mr. Olofson at trial.

At the same time Mr. Olofson was being charged with "Unlawful Transfer" because the rifle malfunctioned and had a M-16 trigger, disconnector, and hammer; calling it an AR-15 with M-16 trigger parts (not the parts that make a machinegun). The ATF removed "a machinegun" from the NFRTR or NFA registry, claiming it was an AR-15 with M-16 parts, therefore NOT "a machinegun". I have the documents, I can prove this.

The court was never shown this information. When Mr. Olofson's Attorneys requested the court compel the ATF to provide this and other documents that proved his innocence to the court. The ATF Chief Counsel's Office told the court the documents contained tax information (federal excise tax stamp for $200) and the court was prohibited from seeing them. All documents were kept secret from the Honorable Judge Clevert and the rest of the court. Even the letter from the ATF to the manufacturer of Mr. Olofson's rifle from 1986, which mandated a "safety recall" due to the rifle going "full auto" if it malfunctioned. ATF Chief Counsel told AUSA Haanstad, who then told the court "The Court will have take our word, that the documents in question contain tax information and contain no exculpatory evidence".

It gets even worse...

AUSA Haanstad claimed the law does not exempt a malfunction. He claims that it states "any weapon that shoots more than once without manual reloading, per function of the trigger is a machinegun". To clarify when I was on the stand, I asked him "Are you saying if I take my Great Granddaddy's double barrel out and I pull one trigger and both barrels go off, its a machinegun?". He went back to the law (United States Code, Section 5845 (b)), and claims "any weapon that shoots..."
If your semiautomatic rifle breaks or malfunctions your are now subject to prosecution. That is now a sad FACT. I guess we know now what Senator Kennedy meant when he said he looked forward to working with Mike Sullivan on Gun control issues, after his committee approved him for full Senate vote.


To those in the sporting culture who have derided "black guns" and so called "assault weapons"; Your double barreled shotgun is now next up to be seized and you could possibly be prosecuted if the ATF can get it to "fire more than once".

Hey, but don't worry. The people testing it have no procedures in writing and the testing will be in secret. Also if you know of information that proves YOUR innocence, maybe the ATF won't claim that it's tax information at your trial and prevent YOUR judge from viewing it.

Are you next up on the menu?

Len Savage-President
Historic Arms LLC

Listen to Len Savage's interview on Talkin' To America

UPDATE: The Paid witness lists himself as a Sergeant in the Army Reserves, there appears to be no one by that name listed as a Sergeant in the Army Reserves.


Posted by redstradingpost at 4:20 PM

Bladerunner71
01-31-2008, 07:49
Should be up on CNN in the next week or so on Lou Dobbs. and the Knox report is running an updated story shortly. It will also be available in shotgun news the 3rd week of February.


G. Gordon Liddy podcast that covers this case.
http://hosts.radioamerica.org/podcast/GGL/...17-01-08_H1.mp3
Articles

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/01/who-...ard-guards.html

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59650

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/


JPFO Podcast

http://www.jpfo.org/media-sound/len-savage-01-10-08.mp3



JPFO Transcripts

http://www.jpfo.org/pdf/LenSavage011008.pdf


Link to the smoking gun in this case

www.nfaoa.org/documents/ATFmemoTaxInfo6103.pdf

"Except for section 6103 (o)(1), which authorizes the discloser of tax information to Federal Employee whose official duties require such information"

Would the Honorable Judge Clevert have proceeded if he found out that ATF at the same time, in another part of the country declared an AR-15 with M-16 parts [including bolt carrier] was NOT a machine gun, and was removed from the National Machine gun Registry?

I doubt it. I also doubt the jury would have bought the ATF fictional display on the stand if they had access to it. I also believe it would never have gone to court if they knew they had to disclose it and the jury would see it.

Bladerunner71
02-01-2008, 15:15
Heard the transcrips got released today. Ought to be interesting when we can see them posted.

passive101
02-01-2008, 15:29
So we are all potential criminals :)


Bring the reset button.

Bladerunner71
02-01-2008, 15:37
So we are all potential criminals :)


Bring the reset button.

If you belive what the feds want you to.

Bladerunner71
02-04-2008, 10:37
From another post. Thought it was interesting. Made me wonder if the guns were really converted or if the ATF was just trying another wild BS claim about the weapons. Although if he had a still they will most likely have him.

Quote:
League City man is held on moonshine, arms counts
Authorities discover stills, confiscate two Tommy guns

By HARVEY RICE
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

GALVESTON — A League City man was charged in federal court Friday with operating two moonshine stills and possessing four automatic weapons, including two Tommy guns.

The five-count indictment against Chris Coulter Hinkley, 54, was read to him by U.S. Magistrate Judge John Froeschner.

Hinkley is charged with two counts of distilling spirits at a dwelling and three counts of possessing an unregistered firearm.

An Aug. 3 raid by federal and state agents and League City police on Hinkley's home discovered a still, boiler and equipment for making moonshine, according to the indictment.

Authorities also confiscated an Olympic Arms Commando model .223-caliber machine gun; a DoubleStar, Star-15 .223-caliber machine gun, and two 1928-type Thompson .45-caliber machine guns, the indictment said.

Hinkley was indicted by a federal grand jury Jan. 23 and arrested at his home Thursday, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Hinkley is represented by the Federal Public Defender's Office.

His attorney could not be reached for comment late Friday.
I saw this in the newspaper yesterday. It makes me wonder if they are using the "if it looks like a duck, it must be a duck" test.

AK_Stick
02-04-2008, 21:12
From the first thread on this topic, it sounds like this guy has some very questionable habits, and if this is a true accidental malfunction, is highly suspicious......

Fox
02-04-2008, 23:02
It is obvious that the ATF and the prosecutors have a political agenda against gunowners here.

I hope this guy wins the appeal.

Bladerunner71
02-06-2008, 21:12
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=192&Itemid=37#usercomments

New article from Jeff Knox. A shortened version of this will be running both in the shotgun news and in some other firearm periodicals.

AK_Stick
02-06-2008, 21:19
Some facts I gleemed from this.

1. He sold how to make silencer/full auto books at gunshows.
2. There were several 80% receivers in the proccess of being made into guns in his home.
3. He had worked on this gun extensively.
4. The selector switch freely rotated past the semi position, and into the 3rd/auto position. And fired full auto.


Now, any of those is legal, save 4, but when you add them all up, it really looks suspicious......

Ender
02-06-2008, 21:26
http://members.aol.com/enjolras15/posters.jpg

repost x 18894! :supergrin:

Juell
02-06-2008, 22:13
Some facts I gleemed from this.

1. He sold how to make silencer/full auto books at gunshows.
2. There were several 80% receivers in the proccess of being made into guns in his home.
3. He had worked on this gun extensively.
4. The selector switch freely rotated past the semi position, and into the 3rd/auto position. And fired full auto.


Now, any of those is legal, save 4, but when you add them all up, it really looks suspicious......

Plus, when did the Army start using Drill Instructors?:rofl:
And he KNOWS an AR-15 rifle doesn't look remotely like a machine gun? Because he's NG, and KNOWS what a machine gun looks like.
Sadly, I think he, or the guy he lent the rifle to tried converting it and got caught.

Sam Spade
02-06-2008, 23:09
From the first thread on this topic, it sounds like this guy has some very questionable habits, and if this is a true accidental malfunction, is highly suspicious......

If you didn't know, Bladerunner is the guy in question. At least, it's the same screen name that the now-convicted NG guy uses on other forums.

So----Chris, is that you?

Dragoon44
02-06-2008, 23:42
Your a suspicious kind of guy Sam, Next I suppose you will think it is suspicious that Bladerunner has 17 total posts. and ALL of them are in threads about this case.

:supergrin:

Bladerunner71
02-07-2008, 16:45
You all don't sound overly happy to hear from me...:wavey:

Sam Spade
02-07-2008, 17:05
You all don't sound overly happy to hear from me...:wavey:

Actually, I'm pretty neutral on that--hearing from you.

We all have our biases--for me, when I don't have first-hand information, I tend to trust what goes into all the different levels of review leading to a conviction by jury. Just sayin', in the interest of open communication.

So, if I understand things rightly, your appeal will center on questions of law, and not on facts already presented. If that's the case, would you answer a few questions?

I'm dying to know how your Oly ended up with a selector that rotates 180*, to the third position.

1811guy
02-07-2008, 17:44
From the article:

At the same time Mr. Olofson was being charged with "Unlawful Transfer" because the rifle malfunctioned and had a M-16 trigger, disconnector, and hammer; calling it an AR-15 with M-16 trigger parts (not the parts that make a machinegun). The ATF removed "a machinegun" from the NFRTR or NFA registry, claiming it was an AR-15 with M-16 parts, therefore NOT "a machinegun". I have the documents, I can prove this.

I only point the following out to demonstrate that I don't think we are getting the full story here.

If the AR15 did in fact have certain M16 internals, the gun could very well be considered a machine gun. If the AR15 had been fitted with an M16 disconnector, trigger and hammer (especially if it had an M16 sear on the trigger) it could function like an AR15 if the other select fire components were absent. Anyone who has built an AR15 knows that many M16 internals would turn their build into a machine gun, even though it is only capable of semi-auto fire (exception would be on parts ATF has said can be used such as M16 bolts and bolt carriers). Getting the gun to fire full-auto again was just another piece of probable cause that ATF was adding to prove their case.

The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt still holds true here, and if the gun were an unmodified rifle from a manufacturer, I doubt that there would have been a conviction. I am inclined to think that M16 parts were knowingly put in the gun, probably not to commit a crime but rather to save $35 on a new CMT parts kit. Kind of crummy, but we all know that messing with the NFA is a quit way to get in trouble, and this situation is proof of that.

Then again, the guy could be completely innocent, and the jury was confused by the technical aspects of the case.

Bladerunner71
02-07-2008, 18:43
Actually, I'm pretty neutral on that--hearing from you.

We all have our biases--for me, when I don't have first-hand information, I tend to trust what goes into all the different levels of review leading to a conviction by jury. Just sayin', in the interest of open communication.

So, if I understand things rightly, your appeal will center on questions of law, and not on facts already presented. If that's the case, would you answer a few questions?

I'm dying to know how your Oly ended up with a selector that rotates 180*, to the third position.


We are not to the appeal process yet. There are a few things that happened that has caused us to have a hearing scheduled with the judge. At the hearing it will be decided if the jury verdict gets set aside and I go back for a proper trial, or if it is a full acquittal. If he wants nothing to do with it then he has to come up with a sentence. Then we can move several questions of law to the appeals court. I personally do not see this moving forward without getting reversed. Too many things happened that shouldn’t. There is a lot of information that is not out here yet, and I am under a gag order not to talk about it. I will say if you think what you have currently heard about the governments conduct in this case is bad, you haven't heard squat yet.

But back to the basic thing many are asking, is there stuff that has not been publicly disclosed yet? YES. But I can't be the one to bring it up right now. Best person for first hand information is Len Savage; he can say some of the things I can't, but not all.

And as for m16 parts in AR-15's, it was a common practice years ago to use them, selectors included. And this particular gun is one of the same make and models recalled for the use of them in the mid 80's (when it was made). The manufacture has documentation of this, but the government precluded us from showing it to the judge and jury. Len Savage did testify to that though after consulting with Olympic Arms on the issue though. You will see that when the full transcripts come out.

Bladerunner71
02-09-2008, 07:39
Looks like Mr. Savage picked up on this report.

Link to original article about the ATF agent forgetting her gun in the airport bathroom.

http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs...N0101/80207020

Link to article that was posted today.

Titled ” If the ATF shoe were on the other foot....”

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/...ther-foot.html

G36's Rule
02-09-2008, 07:56
Bladerunner71,

Both links go to nothing.

Good luck to you in this case. Keep us informed when you can.

Bladerunner71
02-09-2008, 08:08
Corrected the links.

Link to original article about the ATF agent forgetting her gun in the airport bathroom.

http://www.fdlreporter.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880207020

Link to article that was posted today.

Titled ” If the ATF shoe were on the other foot....”

http://redstradingpost.blogspot.com/

Bladerunner71
02-09-2008, 10:04
Looks like we have a few more articals out there.

http://jerrythegeek.blogspot.com/2008/01/reds-trading-post-len-savage-duck.html

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55908

Fed Five Oh
02-09-2008, 10:38
Since you're a convicted felon now, how long did they give you to get rid of your firearms?

Bladerunner71
02-09-2008, 11:12
Since you're a convicted felon now, how long did they give you to get rid of your firearms?

Found guilty by a jury, but I have not completed the conviction process. We are waiting on some other judicial proceedings. If the case passes local judicial review, and there is a sentence handed down and executed, then I will be convicted. At that point we would have to wait on review by the US court of appeals.

humanguerrilla
02-09-2008, 15:47
Seems like they would have to prove that it was malfunctioning at the time of transfer or slamfired on the first shot, otherwise, by their logic they'd be prosecuting the wrong man. I think many could be in the same boat and the trends coming out of the BATFE are disturbing. I had a gun that used to slamfire.

If it wasn't a "machine gun" at transfer then you must acquit.

They are friggin' silly with these definitions.Laughed at H.R. 1022" "`(43) Threaded Barrel- The term `threaded barrel' means a feature or characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow for the attachment of a firearm as defined in section 5845(a) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(a)).'."

Threaded barrels are designed to attach a firearm to your firearm? A silencer may be defined as a "firearm", after the careful definitions of actual firearms in the US code, for regulation purposes but these jackasses are dumbing down the language, the law, and our society.

Bladerunner71
02-22-2008, 20:02
Happened across some more transcripts. I'm posting a few more excerpts from the transcripts for your reading pleasure. I believe they are self explanatory when it comes to the governments new position on what is a MG.

MR. HAANSTAD: (Assistant US Attorney)
Now, Mr. Savage may be of the opinion that Exhibit 1
is not a machine gun. But it's also clear that Mr. Savage
doesn't consider himself bound by the legal definition of
machine gun.
You heard him testify yesterday that it wouldn't
matter to him if he picked that gun up and pulled the trigger
once and 50 rounds came out or 100 rounds came out, he still
would not consider it a machine gun.
Well, how can that be under the definition that you
have of a machine gun? Again, that's the definition that
controls here, not any notion that Mr. Savage may have as to
what constitutes a machine gun.
A machine gun is specifically designed by statute and,
again, about six pages back -- six pages from the back of the
packet of the jury instructions you're going to receive, that
definition is provided. And clearly, under the legal definition
of "machine gun" that you're going to be asked to apply, Mr. Olofson's gun qualifies because, as Mr. Kingery testified,
as Mr. Kiernicki testified, and as you yourselves all saw in the
video, when you pull the trigger once on that firearm more than
one round is fired.


GOVERNMENT REBUTTAL ARGUMENT
MR. HAANSTAD: Ladies and gentlemen, the defense has
invited you to go down a number of paths that stray from the
straightforward central issues in this case, the first again of
which is, was Mr. Olofson's gun a machine gun?
Now, I've emphasized already that you should focus on
the definition that's provided. And if you do so, you see that
the statute covered not only as Mr. Fahl indicated a weapon that
shoots automatically more than one shot -- and he's right,
that's written in the present tense -- but there's no support in
that statutory definition for the notion that right as you, as
jurors, deliberate, we have to demonstrate to you that this
particular gun shoots automatically. Because the definitionprovides that a machine gun is any weapon which not only shoots
but which is designed to shoot or can be readily restored to
shoot automatically more than one shot with a single function of
the trigger.


And again, when Mr. Kingery did the test fires,
including the one that's on video that you've seen -- we didn't
take you to a test range yesterday but we attempted to bring the
test firing range to you by video taping this, and in that video
tape you can see that when Mr. Kingery pulls the trigger once,
more than one round is expelled, clearly satisfying the first
part of that definition of "machine gun" that I've asked you now
several times to focus on. But remember, you don't necessarily have to stop there
according to this definition because it also, the definition
also includes firearms that were designed to shoot or can
readily be restored to shoot automatically.
So again, under that definition there's no support for
the notion that every time you go out and fire this weapon ithas to fire automatically. Simply not consistent with the plain
language of this statute which the court is going to instruct
you to follow.
Nor is there any support for the notion that you have
to use a particular type of ammunition when you fire the
firearm, and that only if you use a specific type of ammunition
and it fires automatically does it qualify as a machine gun.
Again, that particular requirement, that any
particular type of ammunition be used, simply is not included
within this definition. And not only is not included, but it's
not consistent with this definition because, again, it covers
not only shoot but also which are designed or can readily be
restored to shoot automatically. Now, as I mentioned earlier, it's somewhat tempting to
sort of point by point discuss all of the evidence that came
out, but the fear is that it's, again, gonna lead you down a
path that's really not -- right on this, right in connection
with the straightforward central issues that are presented in
this case.
But, to the extent that there's some concern, for
example, that some kind of special ammunition was used in order
to induce this automatic fire, keeping aside, setting aside for
one minute whether that matters even under this definition,
remember the testimony was that the unique type of ammunition
that was used was the military grade ammunition that OfficerKingery used in that first test fire that he did. That was the
nonstandard ammunition, the military stuff.
When Mr. Kingery, on a subsequent test, used regular
standard commercially available civilian ammunition, the type of
ammunition that you would go out and buy at the sporting goods
store, and he popped that ammunition into Exhibit Number 1,
Exhibit 1 fired automatically. It did so on the second test and
it did so again on this test that you've seen and which you can
see again when you're back deliberating.


And that's what your focus should be on. It shouldn't
be on this testimony about what might have happened in some
hypothetical case. It shouldn't be about what's happened in
other cases. You're asked to decide whether or not this
particular gun fires automatically. And not only have you seen
it with your own eyes fire automatically, but you've heard this
explanation as to why it fires automatically.
Now, there's also a bit of a danger, I'm afraid, that
you're gonna focus too much on the possible modifications
or performance of this gun. There's no requirement that you
find that Mr. Olofson himself performed the modifications that
converted this AR-15 into an M-16. In fact, there's no requirement that you believe that
the gun's been modified to fire as an M-16. The sole issue that
you have to decide is whether or not the gun in fact firesautomatic. That is, even if a gun came from the manufacturer
assembled as a machine gun, if Mr. Olofson's in possession of
that type of gun, that is, a non-modified but nonetheless
machine gun, and he then transfers it to Mr. Kiernicki, he's
guilty, he falls within this definition.

Based on all this, ladies and gentlemen, keeping in
mind the statutory definition of "machine gun," that is, again,
any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot,
with a manual reloading by a single function of the trigger --that is, again, any weapon that will shoot more than one round
with one pull of the trigger, or that is designed to shoot that
way, or can be readily restored though shoot that way, is a
machine gun.

Bladerunner71
02-26-2008, 10:14
Some interesting quotes from testimony of Max Kingery


Q. Okay, and how long have you been with ATF?
A. About two and a half years.

Q. An FEO? Have you been an FEO that whole time?
A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. And what are your duties and responsibilities as an FEO?
A. As an FEO primarily we examine and classify items submitted to us as evidence. We also examine items submitted to technology branch by the firearms industry for classification.
Items that are being imported into the United States are evaluated for their importability. And we answer general firearms related questions to the public and to members of the Industry.

Q. How are you employed prior to working for ATF?
A. Prior to ATF I was a sergeant with the West Virginia State Police.

Q. And what types of firearms training did you receive before you came to ATF?
A. With the state police I was trained with the service side arm, and with the shotgun and carbines. I was also a sniper, so I'm a member of the sniper team.

Q. Okay. And have you received firearms training since joining ATF?
A. Yes, sir, I have.
Q. And what kind of training is that?
A. I received training on the classification of firearms according to the Federal Firearms Guide. And I've attended several armors courses on a number of different types of firearms. Ammunition factory tours, ammunition training at those tours. Training on firearms nexus.

A. And I've written, I believe it's 15, possibly 16 what we call white papers -- Q. What are those?
A. -- on a number of different firearms. It's basically like a homework assignment of paper. The initial part of my position with ATF I was being trained on the job. And part of that training I had to write these papers on a number of different types of firearms. One of those was the AR-15 series of Firearms.

Q. Is your experience with the M-16 purely on a firing level or have you repaired or examined the gun through your training and experience in these other past endeavors?
A. In the past it was mainly usage. With the ATF it's been, it included repair, detailed examination, complete disassembly and Assembly.

Q. In your training and experience as an expert on AR-15 weapons, you're aware, of course, that many AR-15 weapons, especially those manufactured in the '80s, were manufactured with some M-16 internal parts?
A. I'm aware that some were, yes.

Q. Did you ever contact SGW/Olympic Arms about this particular rifle?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Are you aware that SGW has recalled this particular rifle?
A. No, sir.

based on your training, your
experience and your examination of Exhibit 1, is it possible that hammer follow was responsible for causing the firearm to fire automatically on those occasions?
A. As a malfunction or in --
Q. (Interrupting) Yeah, I'm sorry, there was malfunctioning in that way, and that's what was causing the firearm to fire fully automatic?
A. No, there was no malfunction of this firearm at all.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. FAHL:
Q. I guess to be clear, is hammer follow a malfunction or not?
A. It can be. It was intended in this instance.
Q. Now, going to Mr. Haanstad's questions about firing three rounds and jamming. Why would somebody design a gun to fire three rounds and then jam, have to eject the bolt, start all over, fire three rounds, jam, and do that?
A. They would not do so, sir.


I can’t help but comment on a few things.

1. Almost all of his “training” is limited to the user level of weapons. The rest seems to be merely on the job or maintenance courses so he can try to understand what kind of weapons he is working with. Len Savage on the other hand creates weapons from scratch, and can redesign and remake them at will to be what he wants them to be. As such he also creates the procedures people like Mr. Kingery use to learn about the weapons in their armorors courses.
2. He is aware of the use of M16 components in Olympic arms/SGW AR’s from the 80’s, but never bothered to contact them for any details. (Plausible deniability through lack of investigation?) Len Savage on the other hand did contact them to verify everything according to his testimony.
3. With all that superior federal training he can’t seem to make up his mine weather the gun is a malfunctioning semi auto or a FA. He has multiple conclusions that contradict themselves on paper, and in his testimony he first claims the gun is malfunctioning, then states there is no malfunction, then ends this excerpt with no one would make a weapon to do this. A lot of Orwellian double speak in there. I find that a stark contrast to Len Savages testimony that never wavered from the point that the weapon was only malfunctioning, was not modified, and that no matter how much it malfunctioned it would not suddenly become a MG. Maybe if he didn’t have all that superior federal training or those wonderful classification procedures (sic) clogging his head, he could come to an easily repeatable scientific conclusion like Mr. Savage did.

Bladerunner71
03-13-2008, 13:48
Just herd that CNN is airing this case on the Lou Dobbs show in 2 parts. Once tonight at 7-8 EST, and the second part on the next show. Not sure what slot they are giving it, but I was told to look for it in the first half hour. Arm all those recorders, this should be good.

Bladerunner71
03-13-2008, 14:59
From the station personnel…

“Hello…we will possibly split this story into a two part event…either way we’ll be running something tonight in the show…airs 7P-8p EST on CNN…unsure of the hit time for this piece, but expect it in the first half-hour.


Part 1 will air tonight around 7:30 PM on the CNN Lou Dobbs Tonight program

Part 2 will air Friday night / time tbd”

Bladerunner71
03-14-2008, 07:45
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2008/03/13/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn

Link to part one.

Bladerunner71
03-15-2008, 11:30
Part 2: www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/14/tucker.government.guns.part.2.cnn

1811guy
03-17-2008, 09:01
Happened across some more transcripts. I'm posting a few more excerpts from the transcripts for your reading pleasure. I believe they are self explanatory when it comes to the governments new position on what is a MG.

MR. HAANSTAD: (Assistant US Attorney)
Now, Mr. Savage may be of the opinion that Exhibit 1
is not a machine gun. But it's also clear that Mr. Savage
doesn't consider himself bound by the legal definition of
machine gun.
You heard him testify yesterday that it wouldn't
matter to him if he picked that gun up and pulled the trigger
once and 50 rounds came out or 100 rounds came out, he still
would not consider it a machine gun.
Well, how can that be under the definition that you
have of a machine gun? Again, that's the definition that
controls here, not any notion that Mr. Savage may have as to
what constitutes a machine gun.
A machine gun is specifically designed by statute and,
again, about six pages back -- six pages from the back of the
packet of the jury instructions you're going to receive, that
definition is provided. And clearly, under the legal definition
of "machine gun" that you're going to be asked to apply, Mr. Olofson's gun qualifies because, as Mr. Kingery testified,
as Mr. Kiernicki testified, and as you yourselves all saw in the
video, when you pull the trigger once on that firearm more than
one round is fired.


GOVERNMENT REBUTTAL ARGUMENT
MR. HAANSTAD: Ladies and gentlemen, the defense has
invited you to go down a number of paths that stray from the
straightforward central issues in this case, the first again of
which is, was Mr. Olofson's gun a machine gun?
Now, I've emphasized already that you should focus on
the definition that's provided. And if you do so, you see that
the statute covered not only as Mr. Fahl indicated a weapon that
shoots automatically more than one shot -- and he's right,
that's written in the present tense -- but there's no support in
that statutory definition for the notion that right as you, as
jurors, deliberate, we have to demonstrate to you that this
particular gun shoots automatically. Because the definitionprovides that a machine gun is any weapon which not only shoots
but which is designed to shoot or can be readily restored to
shoot automatically more than one shot with a single function of
the trigger.


And again, when Mr. Kingery did the test fires,
including the one that's on video that you've seen -- we didn't
take you to a test range yesterday but we attempted to bring the
test firing range to you by video taping this, and in that video
tape you can see that when Mr. Kingery pulls the trigger once,
more than one round is expelled, clearly satisfying the first
part of that definition of "machine gun" that I've asked you now
several times to focus on. But remember, you don't necessarily have to stop there
according to this definition because it also, the definition
also includes firearms that were designed to shoot or can
readily be restored to shoot automatically.
So again, under that definition there's no support for
the notion that every time you go out and fire this weapon ithas to fire automatically. Simply not consistent with the plain
language of this statute which the court is going to instruct
you to follow.
Nor is there any support for the notion that you have
to use a particular type of ammunition when you fire the
firearm, and that only if you use a specific type of ammunition
and it fires automatically does it qualify as a machine gun.
Again, that particular requirement, that any
particular type of ammunition be used, simply is not included
within this definition. And not only is not included, but it's
not consistent with this definition because, again, it covers
not only shoot but also which are designed or can readily be
restored to shoot automatically. Now, as I mentioned earlier, it's somewhat tempting to
sort of point by point discuss all of the evidence that came
out, but the fear is that it's, again, gonna lead you down a
path that's really not -- right on this, right in connection
with the straightforward central issues that are presented in
this case.
But, to the extent that there's some concern, for
example, that some kind of special ammunition was used in order
to induce this automatic fire, keeping aside, setting aside for
one minute whether that matters even under this definition,
remember the testimony was that the unique type of ammunition
that was used was the military grade ammunition that OfficerKingery used in that first test fire that he did. That was the
nonstandard ammunition, the military stuff.
When Mr. Kingery, on a subsequent test, used regular
standard commercially available civilian ammunition, the type of
ammunition that you would go out and buy at the sporting goods
store, and he popped that ammunition into Exhibit Number 1,
Exhibit 1 fired automatically. It did so on the second test and
it did so again on this test that you've seen and which you can
see again when you're back deliberating.


And that's what your focus should be on. It shouldn't
be on this testimony about what might have happened in some
hypothetical case. It shouldn't be about what's happened in
other cases. You're asked to decide whether or not this
particular gun fires automatically. And not only have you seen
it with your own eyes fire automatically, but you've heard this
explanation as to why it fires automatically.
Now, there's also a bit of a danger, I'm afraid, that
you're gonna focus too much on the possible modifications
or performance of this gun. There's no requirement that you
find that Mr. Olofson himself performed the modifications that
converted this AR-15 into an M-16. In fact, there's no requirement that you believe that
the gun's been modified to fire as an M-16. The sole issue that
you have to decide is whether or not the gun in fact firesautomatic. That is, even if a gun came from the manufacturer
assembled as a machine gun, if Mr. Olofson's in possession of
that type of gun, that is, a non-modified but nonetheless
machine gun, and he then transfers it to Mr. Kiernicki, he's
guilty, he falls within this definition.

Based on all this, ladies and gentlemen, keeping in
mind the statutory definition of "machine gun," that is, again,
any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, or can be
readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot,
with a manual reloading by a single function of the trigger --that is, again, any weapon that will shoot more than one round
with one pull of the trigger, or that is designed to shoot that
way, or can be readily restored though shoot that way, is a
machine gun.

I disagree with the prosecutor here. The intent still needs to be proven. You cannot convict on the mere definition of it (the actus reus), you still have to show intent (mens reus), i.e. - that the defendant knew the gun was full auto (whether intentional or not), and that the defendant intended to keep it that way, or make it that way, or was indifferent to that fact that it was. If I were the defense, that would be my focus in trying to get the conviction thrown out on appeal.

Bladerunner71
03-19-2008, 18:21
Now I know most folks are under a bit of stress over the Heller case, and many including myself are not happy with my case. No one around here has more stress than I do right now. But whoever posted that crap up on Google group’s needs to STOP. You are not helping our cause by doing what you did. And you are only going to get me and my family hurt or worse. Don’t let me see it again.

Bladerunner71
05-01-2008, 18:28
Just a note to update everyone. I was just given official notice of a post trial motion and sentencing date of 8 May. Motions will be heard right before any sentencing, with the hope that at least one of the motions to dismiss wins out. If not, then at least we have an answer on this from the court and the full story can come out. Anyone wishing to attend the hearing is welcome. It will be heard at the Federal court house in Milwaukee Wisconsin in front of Judge Cleverts at 1430. I’d be there a bit early if you want seating. The motions are expected to take 30-60 minutes; any sentencing would take an additional 15-30 minutes if it goes that far. If you want attend please plan on good behavior in the court room, and by extension the Federal court house. Neither is the place for any dissent. Opinions can be freely rendered after the hearing outside the courthouse to whoever chose’s to listen.
I will also add that additional reading on this can be done in at least the next two issues of Soldier of Fortune. In addition to that Lou Dobbs has more coverage ready to roll from some very prominent people weighing in on this subject. Most likely additional coverage will also be given to me after the fact. I will post any dates of the airing when it is decided the timing is right by the network.

I promised you more and now it’s coming. True to my word all I can say is brace yourselves, its worse than you think, and unlike the BATFE in this case we can prove it.

Bladerunner71
05-02-2008, 17:05
K.new information for everyone. More to come befor the 8th.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 06-CR-320
DAVID R. OLOFSON,
Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE
DAVID R. OLOFSON, by counsel, submits this memorandum in support
of his motion for the disclosure of evidence.

I. Background.
Olofson had previously requested disclosure of the SGW letter
from the government on September 25 and December 10, 2007. The government
refused to turn over the SGW letter. Accordingly, Olofson filed a motion to compel
its disclosure, along with other documents not relevant here, on December 28, 2007.
At the final pretrial conference on January 3, 2008, the Court refrained from making
any decision regarding the SGW letter until it heard back from the government as
to whether a SGW letter actually existed.

On January 7, 2008, the morning of Olofson’s trial, the Court inquired
of the government as to the existence of a SGW letter. The government asserted that
a SGW letter exists, but that it did not believe that the SGW letter was discoverable
because, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), it
contained privileged tax return information and was therefore protected under 26
U.S.C. § 6103. Moreover, the government contended that in any event the SGW
letter was not exculpatory. Based upon the BATF’s representations, which were
made through the government that the SGW letter contained return information, the
Court denied Olofson’s motion to compel its disclosure. Olofson proceeded to trial
and was found guilty of transferring a machine gun by a jury on January 8, 2008.

II. Argument.
Any correspondence from the BATF to SGW/Olympic Arms regarding
the use of M-16 parts in its AR-15 rifles is not privileged return information as that
term is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and is therefore discoverable. Moreover, the
SGW letter is discoverable because it directly contradicts the government’s theory
during the pendency of this case that because Olofson’s AR-15 contained the
following M-16 parts, it qualified as a machine gun: a M-16 trigger, hammer,
1Olofson has never seen a copy of the SGW letter. The information
regarding its contents comes from the recollection of Bob Schuetzen, owner of
SGW/Olympic Arms. Schuetzen’s original letter from the BATF was destroyed
in a fire a number of years ago.

disconnector and selector. Accordingly, the SGW letter is material to the issue of
guilt or innocence and is discoverable under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

A. Return Information.
For the purposes of 26 U.S.C. § 6103, a return is any tax or information
return that is required by, or provided for, or permitted under Title 26, which is filed
with the Secretary by, on behalf of, or with respect to any person. 26 U.S.C. §
6103(b)(1); Ryan v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms,715 F.2d 644, 646 (D.C. Cir.
1983). “A ‘tax return’ is a return filed by the person liable for the tax to which the
return information relates.” Ryan, 715 F.2d at 647, FN4. Return information
includes, among other things, a taxpayer’s identity, amount of his income, assets
and liabilities if they are received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to or
collected by the Secretary with respect to a return. 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(2)(A); Ryan,
715 F.2d at 646. According to Ryan, the proper test to determine whether something
is return information is to look to the formality of the document and the
standardized requirement of its filing. Id. at 647.

Under the standard created by then Judge Scalia of the D.C. Circuit, the
SGW letter is clearly not return information. The document(s) in question1 were
generated by the BATF and address BATF’s concern regarding SGW/Olympic

Arm’s use of M-16 parts in its AR-15 rifles and malfunctions that may be occurring
because of the use of M-16 internal parts; the documents were not filed by the
taxpayer. Nor were the documents generated to protect or regulate revenue streams
or assess liability regarding a particular taxpayer. Instead, the correspondence
issued from the BATF in response to safety concerns about SGW/Olympic Arms
AR-15 rifles. Because the SGW letter is not a return as defined in § 6103, the contents
of the letter are not return information and are not protected from disclosure under
the statute.

B. BATF Memorandum.
Not only does the BATF’s position mistake the controlling law with
regard to the § 6103 privilege, but its own internal policy on the subject contradicts
its position. Olofson has been made aware of an internal BATF memorandum that
discusses the sort of information that the BATF collects that should be considered
return information.

The BATF memorandum at issue is BATF memorandum number 22889,
which is dated August 18, 1980.2 The memorandum discusses whether the
information listed on NFA transfer cards is protected under 26 U.S.C. § 6103 in
response to a request for disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA). The BATF memorandum opines that the only the name the transferee on
the NFA transfer form is return information because the transferee may be subject
to tax or liabilities based upon the transfer. All other information on the NFA
transfer forms would be discoverable under the FOIA. Because the SGW letter does
not discuss the transfer of firearm or registration of firearm under the NFA, under
BATF policy, the SGW letter does not contain return information for the purposes
of 26 U.S.C. § 6103 and it is discoverable under the statute.
C. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Through the entire pendency of this case, the government has
maintained that it is the presence of internal M-16 parts in Olofson’s AR-15 that
make it a machine gun. See, e.g., Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for
Judgment of Acquittal at 3 FN1, Docket No. 80. Upon information and belief, the
SGW letter directly contradicts the government’s assertion regarding the four
internal M-16 parts. As such, that information is material to the issue of guilt and
is discoverable under Brady.
III. Conclusion.
WHEREFORE, David R. Olofson, by counsel, respectfully requests that
the Court grant his motion to compel the disclosure of copy of any and all
correspondence from the BATF to SGW/Olympic Arms or concerning
SGW/Olympic Arms’ use of M-16 parts in the production of its AR-15 type weapons
between 1980 and 1990, particularly the use of M-16 triggers, hammers,
disconnectors and selectors.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Brian T. Fahl
Brian T. Fahl, Wis. Bar #1043244
Counsel for Defendant

Bladerunner71
05-02-2008, 17:08
1For the purposes of simplicity and clarity, Olofson will refer to the
correspondence as the “SGW letter” from this point forward.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 06-CR-320
DAVID R. OLOFSON,
Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE
DAVID R. OLOFSON, by counsel, submits the instant motion to compel
the disclosure of evidence. Olofson seeks to compel the government to disclose a
copy of any and all correspondence1 from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and
Firearms (BATF) to SGW/Olympic Arms or concerning SGW/Olympic Arms’ use
of M-16 parts in the production of its AR-15 type weapons between 1980 and 1990,
particularly the use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and selectors. The
Court had previously denied Olofoson’s motion for disclosure based upon the ATF’s
representations that the SGW letter contained privileged tax return information.

Olofson now seeks disclosure of the SGW letter because the BATF’s contention that
the SGW letter contains privileged return information is both incorrect in law and
contrary to internal BATF policy. Moreover, the SGW letter is exculpatory because
upon information and belief, it contains evidence that directly contradicts evidence
elicited by the government during trail that was central to its theory of guilt. See
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). In support of this motion, Olofson submits an
accompanying memorandum of law.

WHEREFORE, David R. Olofson, by counsel, respectfully requests that
the Court order the defendant to disclose any and all correspondence from the BATF
to SGW/Olympic Arms or concerning SGW/Olympic Arms’ use of M-16 parts in
the production of its AR-15 type weapons between 1980 and 1990, particularly the
use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and selectors as soon as practicable.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Brian T. Fahl
Brian T. Fahl, Wis. Bar #1043244
Counsel for Defendant
517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Bladerunner71
05-02-2008, 17:16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 06-CR-320
DAVID R. OLOFSON,
Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 33.

DAVID R. OLOFSON, by counsel, submits the instant motion for a new
trial pursuant to FED. R. CRIM P. 33. The instant motion is dependent upon Olofson’s
motion to compel the disclosure of evidence, Docket No. 81. If the motion to compel
is granted, the new evidence will require that a new trial be granted in the interest
of justice. In support of his motion for a new trial, Olofson alleges the following:

1. The disclosure of the correspondence from the Bureau of Alcohol
Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) to SGW/Olympic Arms constitutes newly discovered
evidence. Because the instant motion is based upon newly discovered evidence and
has been filed within three years of the verdict, it is considered timely. FED. R. CRIM
P. 33(b)(1); United States v. Cavendar, 228 F.3d 792, 802 (7th Cir. 2000).

2. The SGW letter directly contradicts the government’s position at trial
that Olofson’s AR-15 rifle was a machine gun because it had four internal M-16
parts. Contrary to a motion brought under Rule 29, the Court, in a motion under
Rule 33, is allowed to evaluate the weight of the new evidence and make credibility
determinations regarding it. United States v. Eberhart, 388 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir.
2004). After evaluation, it is clear that the SGW letter undermines the jury’s verdict
in this case and creates a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Reed, 875 F.2d 107,
113 (7th Cir. 1989).

WHEREFORE, David R. Olofson, by counsel, respectfully requests that
the Court grant his motion for a new trial pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 33.

Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, May 1, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Brian T. Fahl
Brian T. Fahl, Wis. Bar #1043244
Counsel for Defendant
Federal Defender Services of
Wisconsin, Inc.
517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Notrega
05-02-2008, 17:32
From http://www.jpfo.org/

From http://www.jpfo.org/

1. US V Olofson: A pseudolegal Case
Kiernicki to teach him to shoot. Olofson did, and even let ... and in due course, Olofson was arrested, charged, and ... to this information. When Olofson's attorneys requested that
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-olofson-case.htm

2. US vs Olofson
About JPFO US vs Olofson This case is soon to go to trial (1/7- ... would seem this case was a total debacle and Mr Olofson was found guilty. Len Savage was present and reports his
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/olofson-vs-us.htm

3. JPFO Film Footage of BATFE Criminality on CNN.
Dobbs show discussed the Olofson case, using film footage ... Len Savage interview about the Olofson case that Lou Dobbs is ... jpfo.org/media-vid/dobbs-olofson-01.wmv http://www.jpfo
http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20080316.htm

4. Another Shocking Miscarriage
There's no way to put this gently. Under brand new ruling by a federal judge, U.S. v. Olofson held in ... U.S. v. Olofson: a Pseudolegal Travesty ... smith/smith-olofson-case.htm
http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20080116.htm

5. Alerts - 2008
Shocking Miscarriage. (US V Olofson: A pseudolegal Case) Jan 14th, 2008 Damned if it is - Damned if it isn't (Catch Twenty-Three) Jan 11th, 2008 What's it Gonna Take (PartIII) Jan
http://www.jpfo.org/alerts.htm

6. L. Neil Smith Article Archive
Olofson held in Milwaukee Wisconsin, if you take your great-granddaddy's double barrel shotgun out, pull just one trigger, and both barrels go off, it's a machinegun. That ancient
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/lneilsmith.htm

7. Boot the BATFE!
Olofson The Harassment of Red's Trading Post BATFE book-keeping issues Len Savage Testimony -- USA v. Kwan Kwan New Trial Order Kwan Comments by Len Savage KTO/Rick Celata
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/bootbatfe.htm

Bladerunner71
05-03-2008, 09:28
I belive these are not known here yet either.



UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN



UNITED STATFS OF AMERICA,



Plaintiff,



v. Case No. 06-CR-320



DAVID R OLOFSON,



Defendant.



DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL



David R. Olofson, by counsel, asks this Court to issue a judgment of

Acquittal pursuant to FED. R. CRIM P. 29(a). Olofson argues that the government's case in chief failed to present evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction.



The government is required to prove that Olofson knowingly transferred a machine gun. A "machine gun" is a weapon that, once its trigger is depressed will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released, or the ammunition is exhausted." United States v. Fleischli, 3 05 F. 3d 643, 6 55 (7th Cir. 2002).



Here, the only evidence that the weapon at issue fired as a machine gun

was when the ATF test-fired the weapon for the second time using soft-covered ammunition. The weapon did not function as a machine gun when it was fired by



Robert Kiernicki because it only fired three rounds, although there were additional rounds in the gun and Kiemicki did not remove his finger from the trigger. The gun therefore did not automatically continue to fire until its trigger was released or the ammunition was exhausted." The government therefore failed to meet its burden to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm at issue was a machine gun" for purposes of 18 US.C. § 922(0). Accordingly, the Court should issue a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29.



Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, January 7, 2008.

Respectfully submitted,

Brian P. Mullins

Brian T. Fahl

Counsel for David R. Olofson

517E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182

Milwaukee, WI 53202

Bladerunner71
05-03-2008, 09:46
This is the original that was denied under the 6103 claim by the government.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



Plaintiff,



Vs

Case No. 06-CR-320

DAVID R. OLOFSON,



Defendant.



DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY



DAVID OLOFSON by counsel, asks the Court to compel the government

to disclose the following evidence



1. All documents pertaining to the 10/20/06 and 11/20/06 reports of

technical examination, including but not limited to: work notes, work

sheets, personal notes, photographs, video, audio, management

directives, e-mail, etc.



2. Copy of the published testing procedures used in FTB testing and

examination of defendant's firearm, as well as whether those

procedures are publically available.



3. All training certificates, diplomas, levels of expertise, etc., on the AR-15

and M-16 firearms for SA Jody M. Keeku.



4. All ATF correspondence to and from SGW and Olympic Arms

regarding the use of M-16 triggers, hammers, disconnectors and safety

selectors in AR-15 type firearms, specifically between 1980 and 1990.



5. All documents concerning the removal, correction or update of any

AR-15 type rifles with M-16 components from the NFRTR (NFA

registry) from 1986 to present, specifically but not limited to entries

made by: Rick Vazquez and Sterling Nixon of the FTB and Ken

Houtchens and Gary Shiables of NFA.



6. All documents relating to the refusal to accept any AR-15 type firearm

with M-16 components for registration on the NFRTR.





7. All FTB letters of classification, determination, etc. of a “shoe lace"

being determined a machine gun or “string trick”, specifically including 1996 to present.



8. All documents relating to the removal of Mr. Sterling Nixon from his

position of Firearms Technology Branch Chief. This information can

be obtained from the ATF director's office from Lou Raden or Audry

Stucko.





Counsel for Olofson has previously requested these items from the

government by letters dated September 25, 2007 (1) and December 10, 2007 (copies of

the letters are attached hereto). The items requested are essential to Olofson's

defense and are also needed to present to Olofosn's expert witness before Olofson

can provide the government with a summary of expert testimony as required by

FED. R. CRIM. P. 16(b) (1) (C:



The requested items will help to demonstrate that ATF has determined that

the particular Olympic Arms rifle at issue here is not a machine gun. As such, these items constitute exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.5. 83 (1963),

and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause imposes a burden on the prosecutor

to "learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government's

behalf." United States v. Hamilton, 107 F.3d 499,509 (7th Cir.1997).







(1) In this letter, Olofson also requested the following items:

(1) Copy of ATF Ruling 81-4;

(2) A TF "Open Letter," Federal Firearms Licensee News Publication, issued in the fall of 1986;

(3) United States v. Corcoran, Case No. 88-11 (W .D. Pa. April 5, 1988), transcript pages 39-40,

which should be available to you from ATF Chief Counsel's Office;

(4) ATF March 11, 1986 memorandum concerning the use ofM-16 components in AR-15 type rifles; (5) United States v. Staples, N.D. Oklahoma (Judgment entered February 21, 1991), testimony of BATF agent McLaughlin, which should be available to you from ATF Chief Counsel's Office. The government responded in a phone call that it will not provide these items to Olofson as they can be obtained elsewhere. Additionally, the government indicated that if these items are obtained from other sources, it would not challenge the authenticity of the documents.



Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, December 28, 2007.



Respectfully submitted,

Brian T. Fahl, Bar # 1043244

Counsel for Defendant David Olofson

517 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Room 182

Milwaukee, WI 53202

Bladerunner71
05-06-2008, 13:22
Another news flash. The hearing, and possible sentencing, on the 8th has been changed. New date is the 13th at 1430. Reason giving is that the Judge believes the documents we have submitted deserve serious attention on his part, and he believes the current time table would not allow him to give them the attention they need.
We will hopefully find out on Tuesday what he finds out in his investigation on the submitted documents. Also noteworthy is the fact that the ATF has removed a pertinent document from there web site. One that they claimed was “privileged 6103” information that they had up for public viewing.

Bladerunner71
05-06-2008, 20:04
Another update. Just was told CNN decided now was a good time to run the next segment on this issue. It will be airing on Lou Dobbs tomorrow. I’ve been told you will find some interesting personalities weighing in on this one.

Bladerunner71
05-07-2008, 13:31
Looks like I’ll be busy with CNN tomorrow morning again talking about some of the information the judge has found so interesting. Maybe I can help clarify a few things for the good folks out there still wondering what’s been going on. Time will tell.

I’ll post a few more picks and drop a note when the next part airs after tonight.

Bladerunner71
05-07-2008, 14:22
Ok. A lot of folks have been asking questions about what the ATF pulled down from their web sight to try to hide it from sight. This is a copy of it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Open_1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Open_2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Open_3.jpg

Bladerunner71
05-08-2008, 11:14
Just finished another interview with Bill tucker from CNN. They are running another segment tonight with some of the new footage. Lot of work to do in very little time but they seem to do well under pressure. Be interesting to see what they come up with.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/PIC00125.jpg

Bladerunner71
05-08-2008, 12:55
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/05/07/ldt.gov.guns.cnn
Link to yesterdays show.

Bladerunner71
05-09-2008, 08:30
I did find last evenings broadcast surprising to say the least. Here is a link to part 4. Please note that half of it is not there, that being the part with the LEAA ripping the ATF on their practices. But the first half is still intact. I would hope everyone who hasn’t already would drop Lou Dobbs a note and thank him for what can only be described as unwavering and steadfast support for gun owners the likes of which I have never seen on a major network. It looks like we now have one singular friend in the mainstream media not afraid to stand up on our rights and take a rock solid stand, not just give it passing lip service. Don’t let that support go unnoticed.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2008/05/08/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn

Bladerunner71
05-10-2008, 18:37
http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/2008/05/09/gun-owner-convicted-for-malfunction/
New web page put up for this on Lou Dobbs web site to make following the story easier.

Bladerunner71
05-12-2008, 17:20
Government finally responded, but only to the motion for a full acquittal. They do a good job making our arguments for us. A lot happening very quickly now with a few working into tonight to be ready for arguments tomorrow. As such this will be the last bit of information I can post until tomorrow night. Below are some excerpts from the reply and some internal correspondence. Government keeps trying to call an apple an orange. May have worked the first time around, but I don’t think this bird is going to fly anymore.



And e-mails and other documents on Olofson’s computer showed that he had ordered M-16 parts.

1. Email referred to clearly shows Olofson turning down M16 parts, not buying them.

Firearms Technology Officer (FTO) Max Kingery testified that Olofson’s firearm fired automatically because, although it was a semiautomatic AR-15, it had M-16 fire control components installed in it. Kingery also testified that the particular M-16 components – the trigger; the selector; the hammer; and the disconnector – in Olofson’s firearm were not installed by the manufacturer. Someone had to have modified the firearm to include those four components.


2. Max Kingery testified he did not think the weapon was made with M16 parts, but that he did not check with the manufacture. Len Savage said it was and did check with the manufacture. Therefore no modification was done by Olofson.

Olofson also had a manual that described how to convert a semiautomatic AR-15 to an automatic M-16 by substituting the very M-16 parts that were in Olofson’s gun.



3. The manual does not show how to convert a AR-15 to a M16 by replacing these 4 parts. It covers much more complex conversions requiring knowledge Olofson does not have.

That the firearm failed to fire automatically on one occasion when it was loaded with special hard-primered military grade ammunition does not remove the gun from the compass of the statutory definition.



4. Shooting is undefined in the statue. It could be said it requires a intended action on the part of the person firing the weapon, and a purposeful design of the weapon to do what is intended. In this instance there is no conversion, but a malfunction. As such the weapon was malfunctioning, not shooting.

A. The evidence at trial clearly supports a rational finding that the firearm in
question was a machinegun.
Olofson argues that, because the statute is written in the present tense, a firearm
qualifies as a machinegun only if it always fires automatically and only if it fires
automatically regardless of the type of ammunition used.
Olofson’s interpretation does not flow from a reading of the plain language of §
922(o). Rather, his interpretation engrafts additional elements onto the statute, which by its terms does not require any explanation for automatic fire (such as that a particular type
of ammunition be used or that a firearm be modified to cause automatic fire); nor does the
statute require any particular number of tests or any particular “error rate.” Factors like
those identified by Olofson are relevant only to the extent that they shed light on whether
Olofson knew that his firearm fired automatically.



5. Lack of scientific testing standards makes any testimony by the ATF vague. Under the US attorneys standard if they can do anything to make a gun go bang more than once you are guilty of a felony. Doesn't matter if they merely use ammunition it is not chambered in or modify the weapon themselves. This makes every semi automatic weapon contraband. How con an regular person figure out if a weapon is a mg if the ATF can't get it strait? No standers makes it unconstitutionally vague.


6. There was no evidence about the parts presented in court because the government lied to the judge to cover it up. There was testimony though.

Bladerunner71
05-14-2008, 03:38
I'll be posting up information on yesterday from my notes latter on this morning. Take a while to condense it from the 10 pages or so I have. I think everyone will find it interesting. As promised I can now start posting information to fill in the blanks of the case that haven’t been talked about yet that we all know are there. Those should start going up this afternoon. Then you can see just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Bladerunner71
05-14-2008, 08:59
K. These are the facts listed from my notes in the courtroom during the motion hearing and sentencing. They are from what was said by 3 individuals, the Judge, the assistant US attorney, and the defense attorney. Nothing in here is to be taken as a quote since I’m condensing it from around 10 pages of shorthand, although some of it will be nearly identical to what was said. I have already been told by a half dozen attorneys to still keep my mouth shut and not express any pointed opinion other than I am very disappointed at the turn of events as they unfolded. Their reasoning is the high likelihood of this being overturned. This is not to say others can’t speak their opinions and other stories about this can’t be told other individuals involved. More from them later to clear up some of those glaring holes everyone knows is there in this case.

Motions were done in this order:
Disclosure
New trial
Acquittal

As soon as I heard what order the judge wanted to do them in I knew this was going south.
All were denied for the following reasons.
It is not necessary to allege or prove the weapon was modified in any way. No one has alleged or proven that it was, nor has the jury found that it was modified. All that the government needs to prove is that the gun meets the strict statutory interpretation. That it may be a factory gun in a configuration approved by the ATF makes no difference as far as the statue is concerned. As such the government disclosed a single document to the court, one of many we were seeking to have disclosed. The judge looked at it, said it appeared to be a letter to SGW/Olympic arms, that it did seem to discuss the guns being made with M16 parts, but because the idea that it was made that way has no bearing on the statue, and because the jury was not asked to find any changes to the weapon the document was not exculpatory and need not be disclosed. The document was then added to the evidence list and sealed. With that sealed there is no new evidence for a new trial to happen. No one would comment on the covering up of any paperwork under the 6103 tax issue. But the judge admitted the government has not disclosed all possible paperwork to the defense. Video of the gun firing the commercial ammo is played. Judge says a malfunction in a semi can be a MG under the statue. Admits there is no M16 bolt carrier or auto sear in the gun and that the gun was apparently made with the 4 M16 parts it has. Points to his interpretation of it being a MG based on Agent Kingeries testimony and says he could not give any credibility to Mr. Savages testimony because it was all hearsay and second hand as he only spoke with SGW and only read Agent Kingery s report but never tested the gun himself. Moved on to ATF ruling 81-4 and the cocorian case from 88. Both say you have to have an auto sear to have a MG. Points to Agent Kingorys testimony that it does not need a sear to be a MG. We pointed out rulings that it must work properly as a MG as designed and not jam. Judge admits the record indicates the gun will not work all the time but repeatedly jams. Again under a strict reading of the statue is doesn’t matter.

That is the basics on the motions. No new evidence, no new trial. Not void for vagueness because the statue it clear, any gun that goes bang more than once, no other requirements for standardized testing of any sort, or modification to the gun needed.

Bladerunner71
05-14-2008, 14:28
Ok. On to the sentencing phase. Judge commented on the following things.
My knowledge of the different jurisdictions we have sovereignty. Knowledge of weapons and military training that make me particularly dangerous. Claims I knew the weapon was a MG as per testimony, even though the testimony was recanted and the only statement from me to the local Pd was I know what a MG is and that is not it. Claimed I have ties to vigilantly militia groups. Points to a email between me and the minute men discussing stopping down and helping out someday as proof of the allegation. Points to pdf manual of conversions as proof I somehow meant this to happen. (Thought this was about a malfunctioning gun?) As addition proof I meant this to happen says I wanted Mr. Kerniki to shoot it as an auto, why else would I give him 100 rounds every 2 weeks. Adds that I admit knowledge of FA to the LEO’s. Leaves out the part where I added I don’t have the skill for machining. Talks about a CCW case that was tossed after I produced a video of the gun in the open and a 911 tape with the caller saying it was open carry. Said it didn’t matter if the charge was dropped and that it was openly carried (legal in WI), anyone who carries a gun in public is endangering public safety (LEO anyone?). Especially if children are around. Points to a mystery document supposedly a letter of reprimand from the army. No proof of service was included with this document. ATF says they did not get it from the Army, but found it in the data on one of the hard drives taken. Document claims I destroyed data on military computers, sold or transferred military data to outside militia or terrorist groups, and was AWOL. I have JAG looking into this BS now. Will know more later. Interesting to note this happened at the same time I received an Honorable discharge and AAM for maintaining Army computers and improving unit data processing. Not sure how I can supposedly be doing both things at the same time, but I will find out. Brings up the giving of ammunition is evidence of some kind of illicit profit making on my part somewhere and that I must have been ignoring the law somewhere to do that. Claims all of the above is proof of less than honorable service in the military and willful disregard of the law. Goes over cases showing people who had real MG’s on a first offence and were either given 12 months probation of let off with a deferred prosecution agreement. Says just because it’s done doesn’t mean it should be done in this case, and that an example must be set to deture others from committing the same crime.

End result is a sentence as follows:
30 months confinement (26 served with good behavior).
2 years probation with 30 hours community service each year.
Give DNA
No guns or drugs
$100.00 Special assessment
Points out importance of submission to federal system
Puts on the record that He has no reason to believe I am a flight risk or that I would misbehave in anyway. Says I have been polite and co operative throughout the entire process. As such I am not remanded to custody, but will self report when noticed at my expense.
Notice of appeal was put on the record.
Judge would not issue a stay of execution of sentence at his level; one is being put in for at the next level.
Some other paperwork is being done, not clear on it all yet. When I know more I will post it.

Bladerunner71
05-15-2008, 13:12
http://www.radioamerica.org/POD_ggl.htm

G. Gordon Liddy podcast, just hit the web.

Bladerunner71
05-15-2008, 14:02
Now a while back I promised to show everyone how deep this rabbit hole is and let them see the whole story. As such I am releasing a number of witness accounts. Most have nothing to lose or gain from speaking up other than the fact they make themselves a target of the feds. These will be released one at a time over the next few days. Draw your own conclusions about who has been telling the truth through this, who has been full of BS, and who is out of control. Now with no further ado here is the beginning of the rest of the story from those who lived it.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Kell_A.jpg

Bladerunner71
05-15-2008, 14:58
How You Can Become A
“Gun Felon”

http://gunsmagazine.com/DGR0708.html

“If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it’s a machine gun.”

At 2:15 PM on January 8 of this year, the Milwaukee jury in the trial of United States vs. David R. Olofson convened. Forty minutes later they emerged, returning a unanimous verdict against the veteran and National Guardsman: “Guilty.”

Olofson, you see, had loaned one of his rifles, and it malfunctioned at a range, firing off short bursts before jamming. This was called to the attention of local authorities who seized the rifle, an Olympic Arms AR-15. They in turn called BATFE, who decided to make a federal case out of it, charging Olofson with illegally transferring a machinegun.

Enter Len Savage (See “Failing the Test,” July 2005), President of Historic Arms, LLC, brought in by Olofson’s defense to testify the automatic fire was not by design or intent, but rather by mechanical failure, and that the firearm in question was simply a semiautomatic rifle that needed to be repaired.

The opposition would have none of that. Savage was not permitted to personally examine the rifle — not even to touch it. He was required to observe as the ATF officer opened it for inspection. His professional credentials were challenged by the prosecution, who wanted his testimony excluded, even though Savage is a firearm designer by profession, and the government’s expert witness received all of his training in the 2-1/2 years he’d been with the bureau. Then the prosecution reneged on its pledge not to sequester witnesses, and had Savage removed from the courtroom so he could not hear the government’s testimony.

So in the end, it didn’t matter this was merely a case of a “hammer follow.”

It didn’t matter the rifle in question had not been intentionally modified for select fire, or that it did not have an M16 bolt carrier or sear, that it did not show any signs of machining or drilling, or that that model had even been recalled a few years back.

It didn’t matter that, when asked if he’d test fired the gun, Savage testified “From my examination and from what I saw on the [ATF test] video I wouldn’t want to attempt it … the video shows the guy who was shooting it was so afraid to fire it from the shoulder he had to hold it out in front of him. So he knew it was dangerous.”

It didn’t matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer type. It didn’t even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not important to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted today.

What mattered was the government’s position that none of the above was relevant because “[T]here’s no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it’s a machine gun.”

No matter what the cause.

Think about if your semiauto ever malfunctions. Because that’s how close you could be to becoming a convicted “gun felon.”

Bladerunner71
05-15-2008, 17:14
Rabbit Hole 2
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/DLO1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/DLO2.jpg

Bladerunner71
05-16-2008, 10:27
Rabbit hole #3

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/MJ.jpg

Bladerunner71
05-17-2008, 11:44
This is rabbit hole number 4, with a few more to go, most much worse.
Don’t know how or why and won’t comment, but things like this make us wonder.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/TMP29.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/PAO.jpg

Bladerunner71
05-19-2008, 12:42
Rabbit Hole #5

This one only reinforces what the others on the range said, the next 2 will bring up further allegations of increasing severity. I’m trying to convince one of my other neighbors to do one on when they dropped me off after the raid. If he does it would prove perjury on the part of the ATF at a motion hearing. But he is pretty scared right now so I’m not sure if #8 will ever get done, but at least we have these 7 if anything.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Berg_Affidavit-1.jpg

Bladerunner71
05-19-2008, 12:53
Will be live on this show, right now for 5pm Tuesday. May change.

"Live Fire" Radio Show With Larry Pratt
http://www.soundwaves2000.com/livefire/

Podcasts

http://inforadionet.com/

For internet broadcast.

Live Fire Is Carried By:
STATION CITY STATE FREQUENCY
KKIM SANTA FE NM FM 94.7
KTRW SPOKANE WA AM 630
KKIM ALBUQUERQUE NM AM 1000
KHQN PROVO UT AM 1480
ARN
accentradionetwork.com
INTERNET (check web for station listings)
WGUN ATLANTA GA AM 1010
RIGHTALK
INTERNET RIGHTALK.com
FREEDOM MACON GA FM 91.9
KGGM MONROE AL FM 93.5
KJSL ST LOUIS MO AM 630
KNAK DELTA UT AM 540
KNLB LAS VEGAS NV FM 99.1
KNLB LAS VEGAS REPEATER AZ FM 97.9
KRKS AURORA CO AM 990
KVRN WEST HELENA AR FM 90.7
KXVI DALLAS TX FM 87.9, 99.1
WACE CHICOPEE MA AM 730
WASB ROCHESTER NY AM 1590
WBGC CANTON NC AM 1240
WBTG SHEFFIELD AL AM 1290
WGUN ATLANTA GA AM 1010
WIQR MONTGOMERY AL AM 1410
WKJV ASHEVILLE NC AM 1380
WMJR ROCHESTER NY AM 1380
WPZZ FRANKLIN IN FM 95.7
WRSB ROCHESTER NY AM 1310
WYEA BIRMINGHAM AL AM 1290
WLRY RUSHVILLE OH FM 88.5

Bladerunner71
05-19-2008, 14:41
Minor correction in the radio times. We are now set to record at 10am tomorrow. Initial broadcast on the net and radio stations will be noon on Saturday. Podcasts should be available in less than 48 hours.

Bladerunner71
05-20-2008, 11:28
Did the recording for the show at 9AM CT this morning. Seemed to go well. Mr. Pratt did most of the talking so I didn’t have to chew on my foot at all. You should already have a link to where the podcast will be put up. It should be there no later than Monday of next week. We are looking at doing more shows in the near future. Dates and times will be announced.

Bladerunner71
05-24-2008, 08:28
While I’m waiting on the last few affidavits to get done I thought I would work on that infamous Email the government keeps referring to. After a whole lot of fighting (feds don’t want it publicly disclosed, go figure(just like the video)) I finally got my hands on that email the government keeps claiming proves I bought a set of M16 FCG parts. Here it is, all four emails over a few week period wrapped up in one. See if you can find the deal for that M16 FCG parts set they claim I bought from him.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/16-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/16_2.jpg

Bladerunner71
06-12-2008, 16:03
Here is the latest information on my case. Some of it is already known, some is not.

Over the last few weeks a number of attorneys have been working on the case. The current arias we were/are dealing with is:

1) The extension of the signature bond (After all why would the government want to incur the liability of sending an innocent man to prison )
2) Expedited Appeal
3) Appeal of the sentence (Average sentence for someone who has a real MG is either differed for 2 years and removed or 12 months probation(Can’t help but wonder what was so different in my case))
4) Appeal of the conviction (Contrary to the government stance in court the US supreme court and the Appellate court from my district already said guns like this are not MGs, but the jury was not allowed to hear that)


The extension of the signature bond was shot down within hours of the paperwork being turned in. Unfortunately this may have been due to the paperwork being incomplete in its details. On the 30th of May my current attorney had what he thought would be the final draft to turn in. ( See page 1-12) I told him to wait until Monday afternoon to give me and others time to go over it and offer any changes. All weekend Larry Pratt and his associates at GOF dug into the issue and came up with more detailed reasoning. Unfortunately my attorney tuned in his original draft with none of the changes being made. The turn in date was the afternoon of 2 June, the motion was shot down the morning of 3 June, I was told of it all on 6 June. And as you can expect I was given notice to report to FCI Sandstone on 10 June with a reporting date of 2 July (This of course is nowhere close to where I live being up near Canada in a different state). ( See page 13) So at this point we can only hope that the expedited appeal goes through so the time spent in prison will be minimal as this error gets corrected. Also that the sentence gets brought down to where it should be to be on par with others, instead of as the judge put it to make a example for similar people out there (read that as gun owners).

In the meantime we have many other attorneys from the gun rights side working on this and I have no doubt they will prevail. A simple look at the work they have already done should speak for itself. (Coming shortly.)

Bladerunner71
06-12-2008, 16:08
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/stay1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/stay2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/stay3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/stay4.jpg

Bladerunner71
06-12-2008, 16:11
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/stay5.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/stay6.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/stay7.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/stay8.jpg

Bladerunner71
06-12-2008, 16:14
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/stay9.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/stay10.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/stay11.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/stay12.jpg

Bladerunner71
06-12-2008, 16:17
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/Rept.jpg

Bladerunner71
06-12-2008, 17:11
These are the changes that GOA asked be made that did not make it in the submited breif.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/add1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/add2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/add3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/add4.jpg

Bladerunner71
06-16-2008, 07:27
MP3 of the Live fire show I did a few weeks back with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America. Just posted this morning.





http://www.soundwaves2000.com/livefire/

Bladerunner71
07-01-2008, 08:43
Just a last minute note to everyone on what is going on.

Last week a meeting was arranged by Larry Pratt of the GOA between Herbert W. Titus, of council with the firm of William J. Olson, P.C. out of McLEAN , VA and Washington DC, and Robert Sanders, of counsel with Mark Barns and associates out of Salem, NC. After a day of interviewing myself and reviewing all the available court documents it was agreed upon that there were good reasons to believe this could get overturned and they would take over this case for the purpose of the appeals process. Anyone not familiar with these attorneys and their firms should take the time to look them up. They are considered by many to be the best in this aria, and they have participated in a many of the well known cases like Heller. All of this is being paid for by the Gun Owners of America through Larry Pratt. The appeal was originally scheduled for July 1st has been rescheduled for August 1st. Total time for a ruling on this case is expected to be anywhere from 6-12 months. The most likely outcome is a reversal of the conviction for any number of reasons, some well known, some not, and a remanding back to the lower court for a retrial with instructions on how this trial should be done. Any more questions from this point onward should be directed to one of them. Naturally reaching me after today will be much more difficult, but I do expect to be back in a few months with this miscarriage corrected. Anyone that has to reach me can do so through the attorneys, though a point of contact at (920)923-1480, or directly at the sandstone institution if need be. We will be leavening for Sandstone this morning, meeting with Larry Pratt, and reporting there around 1330 tomorrow.

Also finished is the wives Affidavit. After reading it I would suggest you review the motion hearing I had over two years ago to suppress the few statements I made under interrogation (available on the net), and the statements posted by ATF agent Keeku. There appear to be more than one discrepancy. Careful review of the statements by all the involved officers also detail some discrepancies. I leave this to you to ponder. The last affidavit may be some time coming as the person doing it has been out of the country for some time and has experienced a computer breakdown. Getting it fixed where he is will be difficult. His affidavit will detail the unlawful, unwarranted, and uninvited entry of his home, rounding up of his family, and search of his property, during the time the warrant was being executed on my property. Keep in mind when it does come out that the ATF had no warrant for what they did to him and his family, nor did they receive his permission. Timeline for the release of that information is unknown at this point, but it will be posted when it is made available.

Much more has been found out about this case with the new and highly qualified attorneys looking into it. Most of it I cannot comment on at this point. But one item of particular interest is this appears to have been a targeted action with Mr. Kiernicki receiving multiple payments from multiple federal agencies. He seems to have been rather busy in the last year also having numerous arrests for everything from underage drinking to resisting arrest. Although at this point the reason for this level of determined action against me is still undetermined, it is speculated by those with more knowledge on this subject than me that it was my activities of helping people on the State level with unwarranted arrests that caused such a disproportionate response. Maybe time will tell if the mere act of helping others in need can be the cause of such unwarranted actions. Lord knows it was made clear in sentencing that a unpopular act, though legal will not be tolerated, and that a simple act of charity like giving someone ammunition they themselves can’t afford is construed to be indicative of a criminal act.

I will make information available as much as I can in the future, but expect any updates to be coming from GOA from this point onward. Also keep in mind this is a very costly venture for them. But they felt that a ruling such as we have in this case that allows all firearms to be outlawed and classified as machine guns if the ATF can make it fire more than once. As the judge put it if the statue does not limit the government, then they can do whatever they want to it.

Be back soon.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/CMOA1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/cloverleaf762/CMOA2.jpg

fit4life
07-02-2008, 11:50
I saw this story on Lou Dobbs a month ago or so. Freaking unbelievable the witch hunts the government is doing these days.

Hyrepower
08-23-2008, 16:59
scary, absolutely scary. I never thought that I would see stories such as this exist in this country. And they are getting more and more common.

Chase7
11-02-2008, 11:07
The working video coverage(and without commercials :whistling: ) Link...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMBqZ4D2-ME

betyourlife
11-02-2008, 12:03
It is sad that a government would do this to its citizens, especially one who served in its armed forces with honor. Good luck to you. Don't give up!! This is BS!!

dman86
04-08-2009, 14:59
Help the family out!

http://gunowners.org/olofson.htm

gunhawk
08-27-2010, 16:31
Dave is out of prison. Just FYI.

labdwakin
12-16-2010, 07:39
He got RAILROADED... ATF=GESTAPO.

Lawmaker
07-20-2011, 09:53
Any new news on this?

scorpio2011
07-20-2011, 10:18
why would you need a selector switch in a semi auto? someone please educate me

Pvt.snoballz
07-20-2011, 10:24
why would you need a selector switch in a semi auto? someone please educate me

uhh...safe and fire?

scorpio2011
07-20-2011, 10:30
uhh...safe and fire?
that i understand
he had a different set up from what i read

Jerry
07-20-2011, 11:01
that i understand
he had a different set up from what i read

From everything I’ve read (some straight from the horse’s mouth) he had a factory built gun that the manufacturer had posted a notification stating some of their firearms had a defect/problem and could fire more than one time with one pull of the trigger. He didn’t know that at the time and of course ATF had the letter pulled from the manufacturers website and somehow got the judge to refuse to admit it into evidence by the defense. BATF also tried and tried using many different types of ammo until they finally got it to go full auto. ONCE from what I hear! So NO he did not have a full auto selector switch in it. And it takes more than a M16 selector to make an AR go full auto.

Jerry
11-26-2011, 10:13
During a discussion on another board some interesting facts were pointed out to me. I had based my opinion on Mr. Olofsons, Bladerunner71 posted here. He failed to give us some important details that came to light on other boards. Seems we were misled.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1407580.html

"The selector switch on the borrowed AR-15 had three positions:  one marked “fire,” one marked “safety,” and one that was unmarked.   Olofson and Kiernicki discussed the unmarked setting on July 13, 2006, which was the fourth time that Olofson loaned Kiernicki the weapon.   Olofson told Kiernicki that putting the selector switch in the unmarked position would enable the AR-15 to fire a three-round burst with a single pull of the trigger, but the gun would then jam."

While at a shooting range that same day, Kiernicki (for the first time since using the gun) switched the AR-15 to the unmarked position and pulled the trigger;  three or four rounds were discharged before the gun jammed.   Kiernicki fired the weapon in that fashion several times, and each time it jammed after a short burst of three or four rounds.   Police received a telephone complaint of automatic gunfire at the shooting range.   When officers arrived at the range, they confiscated the AR-15 from Kiernicki.   Kiernicki told the police that he had borrowed the gun from Olofson.   Several days later, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) interviewed Olofson while executing a search warrant at his home.   During that conversation, Olofson acknowledged loaning the AR-15 to Kiernicki.
...
The government's expert who test-fired the AR-15 stated that he exhausted a twenty-round magazine with one continuous depression of the trigger and emptied two additional twenty-round magazines in five-or ten-round bursts by intermittently depressing, holding, and releasing the trigger.   He also declared that the weapon was intended to fire in such fashions and that a “hammer-follow” malfunction was not the cause.

Jerry: the rifle came from the factory with the M-16 parts.

That is not what Olofson alleged, nor is it what the letter indicated.

That evidence is a 1983 letter from the ATF to the manufacturer of the AR-15 in which the ATF advised the company that the installation of certain M-16 parts in AR-15 receivers may permit the weapon to fire automatically even though an automatic sear is not present.

The letter was, by all accounts, the BATF telling the manufacturer that if someone installed certain M-16 parts in their receivers that the weapons could fire automatically even without an autosear (as Olofson's weapon did).

The recall was to get rid of those receivers so that people couldn't convert them to fire full auto.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...63&postcount=8

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...8&postcount=17

Olofson’s firearm fired automatically because, although it was a semiautomatic AR-15, it had M-16 fire control components. More specifically, the firearm had an M-16 trigger, hammer, disconnector, and selector. Olofson’s firearm was not manufactured with that configuration of M-16 fire control components. Tr. 120, 136-37.

Olofson was aware that those M-16 components were in his AR-15 and that it was those components that caused his firearm to fire automatically. E-mails and other documents on his computer showed that he had ordered M-16 parts. And he had a manual that described how to convert a semiautomatic AR-15 to an automatic M-16 by substituting the very M-16 parts that were in Olofson’s converted machinegun – that is, the hammer, the trigger, the disconnector, and the selector. Tr. 74-80. Olofson knew that his firearm fired automatically and, given this evidence, likely was the person who made the conversions that allowed it to do so.

http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/20/the-olofson-thing/

Olofson’s AR contained numerous M16 parts. As far as I know, some manufacturers in the 70s and 80s used some M16 parts in their AR-15s, like bolt carriers and hammers, until the ATF issued a ruling that the practice be stopped. Olofson’s AR had an M16 trigger, disconnector, selector, and hammer. As far as I know, there weren’t any manufacturers that used this many M16 parts in their ARs. The agent who examined the parts, correctly in my view, stated that this did not constitute a machine gun, but ATF has long held M16 parts in an AR to be a no no.

Here's the thread on arfcom. The OP (Bladerunner2347) is Olofson.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_6/507...id.html&page=1

Olofson repeatedly denies converting the gun, however, it was shown that he had purchased parts identical to those used in the conversion.

On page 11, a poster makes a very pertinent observation. Either Olofson or Kiernicki is "BSing bigtime". The poster marvels that Olofson is taking things so calmly given that the Kiernicki appears to be creating a huge amount of trouble for Olofson. Great point. If someone was essentially manufacturing evidence that could put you in federal prison, one would expect that you'd be at least slightly upset about it. Olofson just keeps going on and on about points of law he's going to raise and talking about jurisdiction, jury nullification, technicalities with the paperwork he's been served, etc... NOT at all the kind of response an innocent person unjustly accused would be expected to make.

Reading through the thread reveals that Olofson never claims that the M-16 parts came on the gun from the factory. He specifically indicated he had replaced the fire control parts but claimed that they were aftermarket AR-15 (DPMS) parts.

Here's a VERY interesting comment by Olofson. He's just posted that the testing showed the rifle was NOT a machinegun after he recieved the first set of test results. So he's overjoyed and celebrating his confirmed innocence, right? Nope. He's telling everyone that the BATF can test the rifle differently and get different results. Here's his quote--my emphasis added.

"If you can manage to read all of the report they fill in some of the blanks I had prior to today. Some of my DPMS parts in the fire control group have been replaced with M16 parts. Enough that the hammer follows the bolt and carrier down. It may not have fired full auto the first time they tested it, but we all know what has to be done to make it work, so they darn well could make it work by just changeing the way they test it. This tech was just not on the same page with them to start with."
So why would Olofson expect that the rifle will fire full-auto even after repeatedly stating that it wouldn't and after receiving word that the initial test showed it wouldn't? You be the judge.

Here's a comment from Olofson on page 23

"I only have semi stuff. I don't keep or use FA Stuff. That weapon had a DPMS Group in it last I checked, installed in 94."
Sounds good, right? Except that the sentencing memorandum indicates that they found records showing that Olofson had ordered M16 parts. He also had a manual showing how to convert an AR-15 to full-auto using exactly the M-16 parts that were installed in the rifle.

Another anomaly that's not relevant but speaks to Olofson's credibility (or lack thereof). Olofson claims to have sold only 7 guns in the past few years. Then on page 25 he admits to purchasing 6-12 AR-15 lowers at a time to build guns for people. Clearly he's not exactly careful about keeping his stories straight. I guess he figures that by ordering the receivers through an FFL and then transferring the built lowers (legally firearms) to people via an FFL, he's not actually selling firearms.

Ok, so what does it all mean?

1. Olofson demonstrates some credibility issues in his posts on the arfcom thread.

2. Olofson WAS given the benefit of the doubt and wasn't prosecuted for MANUFACTURING or POSSESSING a machinegun. He was prosecuted for TRANSFERRING a gun he knew (according to Kiernicki's sworn testimony) would fire more than a single round with one pull of the trigger.

3. Given Kiernicki's testimony, the BATF's actions were proper. We can either choose to believe Olofson (in which case Kiernicki intentionally and unjustly put Olofson in prison) or Kiernicki (in which case Olofson is where he belongs), but either way, the BATF is off the hook. They did what exactly what they should have done given the sworn testimony of Kiernicki.

4. MOST importantly, the gun in question was UNQUESTIONABLY modified from the original factory configuration, not just broken.

If we believe Kiernicki, Olofson installed M16 parts in the gun & filed on some of the remaining parts and told him that the 3rd position was for full-auto but that while it WOULD fire full-auto (short burst) in that position it would also jam.

Olofson is adamant, on arfcom, that the gun left him with an aftermarket parts set, installed while he owned it, and that it didn't have M16 parts when he last had possession. If we believe Olofson, someone else (probably Kiernicki) installed M16 parts in the gun & did some filing on the remaining parts.

EITHER way, SOMEBODY modified the gun. This was NOT simply a case of a semi-auto malfunctioning and someone getting railroaded for it. The gun had clearly had M16 parts installed and internal modifications performed.

Which all gets us back around to the original allegation that brought up the Olofson case on this thread.

We do NOT need to worry about being charged with having a full-auto because one of our semi-autos malfunctions.

We DO need to worry if we have a semi-auto that can be made to fire full-auto AND that has FA parts installed and other internal modifications performed.


I find it very questionable, if not downright incriminating, that Olofson's expert witness apparently tried to lead the court to believe that the rifle came from the maker with M-16 parts and that Olofson didn't modify it. The implication being that the M-16 parts found on the rifle came from the factory. If you look at some of the stuff Olofson posted on GT, you'll find these two comments by the expert witness among the trial-related data.

The fact is that Olofson, according to his arfcom posts, replaced the original factory parts at least twice, the last time with DPMS parts, according to his posts on arfcom. Clearly the M-16 parts found on the rifle later weren't from the factory. We have Olofson's posts as proof.

And that's even if we assume that the original parts were actually M-16 parts and there seems to be evidence that they weren't.

By the way, on page 91 of the arfcom thread, a couple of interesting points are raised by AZAtty480.

If Kiernicki put the parts in the gun to get it to fire full auto, he had ample opportunity to dispose of the gun and/or the parts before it was seized. The gun was not seized when the Berlin Police officer initially contacted him at the range after the report of full auto gunfire. Kiernicki was able to leave that location with the AR15. If he put those parts in the gun, he had time to get rid of the gun and/or remove the M16 parts and get rid of them. It was not until sometime later that the police re-contacted him and seized the Olympic Arms AR15. The Berlin Police Department contacted the ATF to report the incident. An ATF Agent requested that they impound the firearm. The Berlin Police did so. The argument could be made that if Kiernicki was the one who put the parts in the gun to make it fire automatically, that he had plenty of time to get rid of the gun or the M16 parts. By not doing so, one could argue that shows a lack of consciousness of guilt.

An excellent point. Kiernicki could have easily gotten rid of the evidence if he had wanted to. He didn't. It strongly suggests that he wasn't worried about being held responsible. Add that to the fact that he didn't appear to be particularly knowledgeable about the internals of AR-15s (we know that because he approached Olofson to have Olofson build him an AR-15 lower) AND the fact that Olofson was shown to have ordered M-16 parts like the ones in question and it makes it pretty implausible that Kiernicki was the one who doctored the rifle.

The defense chose not to defend the case by arguing or suggesting that the M16 parts were installed in the gun by Kiernicki or someone other than Olofson. They did not even argue that the prosecution failed to prove that Olofson put the parts in the gun prior to transferring it to Kiernicki.
Another excellent point. Given that the case revolved around these M-16 parts and the internal filework and the rifle had been out of Olofson's possession for "months", why not try to prove that someone else made the modifications? Remember, all the defense would have had to do was raise a reasonable doubt. The only logical conclusion is that they didn't try to raise a reasonable doubt because they didn't think they would be able to.

Think about that for a minute...

The defense clearly believed it was futile to try to create a reasonable doubt that Olofson might not have been the one who installed the M-16 parts in the gun and did the other internal mods.

Instead, they chose to focus on trying to convince the court that the gun was simply malfunctioning, a much weaker strategy, but apparently the strongest defense they felt they could muster given the circumstances of the case.

Clutch Cargo
10-28-2012, 02:53
If my autoloading weapon is properly maintained but goes full auto due to a defect, there will be more than just a criminal trial. The company that made the weapon will owe me MILLIONS.

MGman
12-30-2012, 23:01
I don't believe this post at all. I don't buy it!

Jerry
12-31-2012, 09:49
I don't believe this post at all. I don't buy it!


What part don't you believe? Post 89? Or the first 88?