Freedom is what you have when you can exercise your natural rights. When you are restrained from your natural rights, that is oppression. Life, liberty, property, expression, etc.
In the blogroll I added "Photography is Not a Crime" and look forward to following the exploits of real civil rights crusaders.
Because make no mistake, men and women who are willing to be arrested for legally taking photographs and videos are civil rights crusaders. Those unlawful arrests stay on your record, and that record makes it difficult to get a job that requires a background check. After all, who wants to hire someone who has had frequent run ins with Johny Law?
Even if you are in the right, as these photographers are, there are consequences. Personal time lost spent in jail cells, an arrest record (even if the arrest is completely illegal the record never goes away).
The limits on free speech, and a free press, are the identifiers of a tyranny. In this age of the internet, every citizen is a journalist. Most "smart phones" allow the user to snap a photo, upload the pic to a server, and then link the photo to a blog post anywhere there is reasonable cell service.
Why is the ACLU silent on this? Why are photographers not being backed by hordes of attorneys to fight for their right to document public proceedings? I don't know.
But it makes me glad that we people of the gun have the NRA, the SAF, and JPFO. Unfortunately we lost Olofson
And every time we lose, tyrants win.
About Me
- AM
- Raised by conservative Christian parents, enlisted in the Army at 18, used the GI Bill to finish college, and I'm back in the Army. Along the way I've encountered a huge cast of characters, some I got into trouble with, some that passed on skills that have helped me on my life journey.
Assorted Associates and Scalawags
- 3 Boxes of BS
- ammo.net
- Arctic Patriot
- Bayou Renaissance Man
- Blackfork
- Blue's Blog
- Brigid's Blog, Mausers and Muffins
- Carteach0
- Cato, The American
- DoubleTapper
- FreeThinker
- Guffaw in AZ
- Gun Rights 4 Us All
- Gunslinger
- Improved Clinch
- Irons in the Fire
- Joe Huffman
- Just Stop
- Knuckle Draggin'
- Lawdog
- Liberty Optics
- LucrativePain
- Lurking Rhythmically
- m4040
- Mad Ogre's Blog
- MFRC
- Mountain Guerilla
- Mulligan
- MyDailyKona
- Near the Salty City
- Neo-neocon
- NinePoundSledge
- Photography is Not a Crime
- Random Nuclear Strikes
- RobertaX
- SFMedic
- Sniper's Paradise
- Talk Radio Blogger
- The clue meter
- The Lizard Farmer
- The Silicon Graybeard
- Total Survivalist Libertarian Rantfest
- View From the Porch
- Walls of the City
- Zercool
29 comments:
Olofson was lost before it started.
I know one of the defense expert witnesses in the case and when the public defender referred to the prosecutor and judges as "good friends of his" he knew it was doomed. Olofson is also a somewhat abrasive person, which did not help him at all.
True story.
AS to organizations, you Forgot GOA.
"It is not right that matters, but victory!" - Adolf Hitler
A sentiment I'm certain the Obammunists and New Black Panthers wholly endorse, as well as embody.
The expert witness for the defense didn't help Olafson, either. So far as I know, there was only ONE defense expert witness.
Len Savage's testimony basically boiled down to, "Well, it must be broken, because there's no autosear, but I can't actually show any signs of damage or wear that would actually indicate how it is broken. And you guys used the wrong ammo, even though .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO are considered by almost everyone else in the industry to be interchangeable rounds."
Add in the fact that Len Savage's formal qualifications as an expert witness were far overshadowed by the ATF expert (despite the fact that Len designs and makes guns for a living, the fact is his formal qualifications are a little light), and the fact that Len was factually mistaken on the chambering of the gun (it's a readily documentable fact that, even though many of the guns frm that manufacturer were marked "5.56" on the barrel, they were ALL built with SAAMI ".223 remington" chambers during the production period in question) -- thus, the defense claim that the ATF "cheated" by using "soft primered" (i.e., civilian, rather than the harder milspec, primers -- it's not that civlian primers are soft, it's that military primers are "extra hard") .223 rounds to achieve the automatic fire fell apart right on it's face.
Total net value of Len Savage's testimony? No more than zero.
Len Savage probably ended up hurting the Olafson case. He surely didn't help in the slightest.
This, in the face of pretty convincing -- and UNQUESTIONED BY THE DEFENCE -- evidence:
1. That Olafson KNEW how to convert an AR15 semiauto into full auto.
2. That he was apparantly aware that "doubling" and other "more than one shot" situations could occur with THIS rifle.
3. That Olafson didn't feel that ANY federal gun laws apparantly applied to him, as he felt they are all unconstitutional.
4. That while all of those "M16" internal parts had been used at one time or another in that manufacturer's run of AR15s, this PARTICULAR combination had never been used on a production run gun from that manufacturer.
5. That 20 years earlier ATF had informed FFLs and had made publicly available the fact that while it was perfectly legal to INSTALL M16 internal parts into an M16 provided the gun stayed semiauto, ANY AR15 that doubles with one or more "M16" parts is considered a machinegun.
5. That Olafson HAD a copy of teh 1986 ATF letter to inducstry that detailed the problems with M16 internal parts in AR15 rifles causing more than one shot to be fired with a single pull of the trigger.
The recorded testimony and evidence -- including Olafson's OWN WORDS to teh ATF agents, makes the case look VERY different from what most gun rights activists have portrayed it as.
Olafson was lost becuase the defense effectively didn't put up a defense -- they didn't manage to challenge ANY of the allegations ATF pressed. From where I sit, after having read the transcripts and pretrial filings, is that Olafson thought it would be cool if he had a machinegun (as in, "Hey, it's even cooler than bump firing!"), he intentionally swapped a couple of parts to get the go full auto via hammer follow if civilian ammo was used, and he knew it was against the law -- but he didn't agree with the law and so had no problem in his mind breaking it. Plus he figured he could claim innocence if caught (insisting that the MANUFACTURER must have put those parts there, and he was completely clueless that could be a problem), and skate on any consequences.
My real beef with Olofson is the rules of evidence.
If I get this right, hammer follow, which is a malfunction, makes an AR-15 a machine gun.
To test whether or not it is really a machine gun you don't even need the upper reciever. Just set the selector switch to the "unmarked" setting, and hand cycle the hammer down. If it doesn't stay down, it's a malfunction.
If the ATF had to modify their tests to get the result that they wanted, after FOUR months, then their testing method is suspect.
After all, if I really need to find kiddie porn on your computer, all I need to do is use your computer to browse the internet long enough to find that your computer will successfully display kiddie porn, and there's your proof that you possess kiddie porn.
Give me enough time, and I can make ANY of your semi-automatic weapons capable of fully automatic fire. I might have to use an extra long firing pin, or stone down a sear, or reassemble the weapon incorrectly...
Olofson should have been thrown out only because of lack of faith in the evidence gathered by the ATF. Unfortunately the Judges ruled (and you can read it in the judgement I linked) that the evidence was not exculpatory because the defense could not prove innocence based on it.
However, to me that leaves the whole "shadow of a doubt", and innocent until proven guilty.
Geodkyt
The only part you really got correct here is that the defense didn't put up much of any defense. I can detail to you as to WHY this happened. You don't know these things as they aren't part of the transcript.
Len was NOT ALLOWED TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE and was not allowed to be present in the courtroom during the Agent's testimony to help advise cross-examination whearas the prosecution witness WAS allowed to be in the courtroom during Len's testimony.
Bet you didn't know that part of the story or the part that both legal teams and the judge were all pals or that Olofson didn't do himself any favors because he's an abrasive person.
Can't call Len on not knowing something he could only know by examining the evidence.
If you want to pick nits as to qualifications, You typed "Olafson" not "Olofson" in your post here, therefore you can't spell or lack attention to detail, making you seem light in qualifications to comment on write on anything regarding precision and accuracy and you even have access to the proper spelling. You multiply typed his name improperly in your post.
Len WAS NOT ALLOWED to be a helpful witness. Game was stacked against Olofson and Olofson got convicted.
You have whatever limited info you have, I have hours of personally discussing what went wrong and why with Len, so as for it to not happen as such in any other trial. Unless you're the public defender,who had no experience with firearms or firearms trials, you aren't much in any position to comment on why things happened the way they did or blame Len.
Don't take this personally, as I'm attacking your incorrect beliefs due to lack of information on your part regarding Len causing you to draw a false conclusion about his usefulness as a witness. I'm presenting, facts, facts you didn't have.
I'm quite familiar with the transcripts. I'm also familiar with the cases where Len has destroyed the prosecution.
Slagging off on somebody's performance as you have, when you don't know all the details, is like blaming Earl Campbell for not making it over the goal line when you didn't know he had a hamstring injury.
Notice I do not make excuses for Len, I explain why it played out the way it did. ATF/DOJ didn't want another disaster trial. They didn't' want to risk video footage of Len Examining The Firearm In Question and showing which parts were broken such as in a case you might be familiar with where the video became a DVD that made ATF look like morons.
They also didn't like one fellow having All but One Charge dropped in a preceding case.
It was rigged.
Len was NOT ALLOWED TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE. Len was not allowed to be in the courtroom as a consultant to the public defender during the prosecution testimony although the prosecution witness was allowed in the courtroom during Len's testimony. The public defender knew nothing of firearms and had never tried a firearms case.
Bet you didn't know that part of the story or the part that both legal teams and the judge were all pals.
If you want to talk about accuracy, precision and qualifications, you spelled Olofson improperly throughout your post.
Len was NOT ALLOWED to be a useful expert witness. You read a transcript, I've spent hours discussing the issue with him so as such a thing doesn't happen again.
Not a good idea to Monday Morning Quarterback a trial when you only THINK you have all the facts. From where you sit, you have testimony and transcripts. You don't have long discussions with a very frustrated witness that was intentionally prevented from being an effective witness.
From where I sit, that makes your judgement of Len as being "damaging to the defense" when he was trying his best to be helpful, but not allowed to be, slagging off on Len without you knowing the story.
ATF/DOJ are quite shy of allowing the one you call "light in qualifications" near trials because he has tended to prevail to their embarrassment.
Thinking you know the whole story from reading court records isn't a very smart thing to do. It's especially bad to use such as a basis for essentially insulting somebody's abilities.
BTW, There was a FACTORY RECALL on those particular rifles that were commercially manufactured with M-16 internals.
Also, FWIW, there are a LOT of expedient ways to make ARs and any other semi run FA if one wanted them to, so if you weren't properly in possession of a MG it wouldn't make sense to make modifications that were semi-permanent like parts swapping when you could do something in a few minutes at the range and then put it back to legal before anybody knew any better. I'm not suggesting criminal behavior, but if one was to engage in criminal manufacture of MGs, this hypothesis of Olofson doing it on purpose would make him out to be a pretty stupid man as well as abrasive.
Anything that's self-loading and has some form of magazine or other ammunition feed can easily be FA.
Hell, the reason the shorty "Bitch Gun" variants of FALs the Australian SAS used in VietNam got selectors, which they didn't have initially, was because they had a habit of becoming machine guns in very short order in the bush, like "right after weapons inspections". Australian Army gave in and made them selectable since they were gonna run them that way anyway.
Give me a Ruger Mini-14 or Thirty and a matchstick and fifteen minutes and you can have a MG. Shows you the intelligence of the people at FTB. I could take pretty much any semi you own and make it a MG in less than four hours, maybe less than ten minutes, and it took them four months... :-)
Their "testing method" is NOT suspect, BTW, they do not have a formal testing method and they do modify arms (supposedly to test to see if they are easily modifiable). I've had friends send things in for type approval BESIDES LEN that came back with rejected frankensteined stuff that wasn't at all what they sent in for type approval.
I have, over the years, spoken with many ATF agents both when they were Treasury and now as DOJ as to why there weren't rulings on things as to legal procedure both for us and them. The closest thing to a truthful answer I ever got was from a female field agent who said "If we write things down then people will find loopholes/ways to get around our rulings, so we find it easier to allow ourself a more flexible position in our regulatory role."
NO JOKE.
BATFE/DOJ makes it up as they go along and there's no oversight.
Pardon the doubled posts because blooger went weird and me hammering on this so hard but Len was doing this on a pro-bono basis on PRINCIPLE with a public defender that was actively trying to crucify his own client and it's cost him a FORTUNE and created greater animosity for him to be a SOT with the "regulatory" LIARS.
The BATFE and DOJ haven't liked Len since he started beating them in court. They set up a show trial where he couldn't do anything. They put a moron he had defeated in court in charge of oversight of Historic Arms LLC and cost him better than a half million dollars by some of the things they have done regarding his manufacturing operation. If you think Len went in to harm anybody you need to be blindfolded and marched against a fooking wall or put in an asylum for the mentally impaired.
All he got out of trying to help was more hassles and more weird oversight of his perfectly legal business and having a BATFE agent in a US courthouse evidence room threaten to butt-stroke him in the head. That's exactly what people sign up for, right?
THOSE ARE FACTS YOU CAN'T READ IN A TRANSCRIPT.
If you weren't there and you're reading a book or a internet transcript YOU WERE NOT THERE.
I DISLIKE PEOPLE SLAGGING OFF ABOUT THINGS THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT. WHEN THEY ARE FRIENDS OF MINE, IT GETS PERSONAL AS WELL.
Not to hammer some more, but I had occasion to talk to Len about some business related issues today anyway so here's some updates from SOMBODY THAT WAS THERE:
Firearm Enforcement Officer Max Kingery of ATF's Firearms Technical Branch had no experience in the firearms trade, never repaired, cleaned, or manufactured a firearm and had no formal training at FTB. He had 36 months experience of basically OJT. About his first 12 months he was indoctrinated/trained in BATF procedures, not the technicalities of how firearms are manufactured or even how they work.
He was somebody who'd managed to jump from being a WV Highway Patrolman to FTB agent. If you read all the transcripts, not cherry pick them, you will find that basically stated, and it's FACTUAL.
When Len was on the stand "if the attorney had asked the questions I had asked him to ask me, it would have worked well but he didn't do so."
Paraphrase from phone conversation:
When we were in court and the prosecutor said something a bit outside of normalcy, the public defender said out loud "Geez, I've never seen my buddy act like THAT before in court!"
Starting to get a picture here as to how things went down?
There's more to it than this, but it's a good synopsis and I'm going to give Len the URL for this link to see if he wishes to chime in any, being as he was the one attacked as a useless expert witness, I believe he has a right to defend himself.
Tom,
Nice ad hominem attack, based on the fact that I misspelled Olofson’s name (using the more common spelling).
I've READ the transcripts. ALL of them. All 186 pages. You might do well to read them yourself, to fact check your “special knowledge” obtained in conversations with ONE of the participants.
Let us look at some FACTS --
1. Savage TESTIFED that he examined the weapon. In addition, that he felt no need to live fire it. Therefore, your claim that, "Len was NOT ALLOWED TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE" is false. Why should I believe ANYTHING else you have to say from your "special knowledge"? (“Q. Have you examined the firearm at issue here today that's Exhibit 1 which is sitting over on that desk there? A. Yes, I have.”
“Q. And did you test fire the firearm? A. No, I did not.”
“Q. Is there a reason why you would not need to test fire the weapon? A. From my examination and from what I saw on the video, I wouldn't want to attempt it.”
Later, on cross-examination --
(“Q. Okay. Now, you testified that you examined the Olympic Arms firearm, Exhibit 1, right?” “A. Yes, I have. Q. And have you ever test fired it? A. No, I wouldn't want to. Q. Have you ever seen it test fired? A. I saw the video.”)
2. It is not standard procedure to allow one witness hear the testimony of another before the second witness testifies. This is designed to keep witnesses from changing their stories based on the testimony of earlier witnesses. ANY exemption to the common rule of evidence have to be established by the DEFENSE. There is a SPECIFIC example for an expert witness who is essential to the defense as an impeachment witness -- IF the defense argues that he was. The defense failed to do so. The failure to get Len Savage into the courtroom was ENTIRELY the failure of the defense team. On appeal, this error on the part of the defense would ONLY be an issue if the appeal was based primarily on lack of adequate counsel. It is NOT the prosecution's job to assist the defense in filing motions.
(Part 1 of 4)
(Part 2 of 4)
3. The prosecution witnesses had already GIVEN their testimony. The only reason they would be brought up then is redirect -- perhaps to impeach another witness, but the ORIGINAL testimony is already "in the can" and unalterable. (So that changing his story NOW just makes him look like a perjuring liar, as the show Law & Order turned into a cliché -- "Are you lying NOW, or were you lying THEN?!?") Thus, he was allowed to stay. This is also long standing precedent in our legal system -- IIRC, it derives from our pre-Revolutionary BRITISH legal system. Of course, you don’t bother to mention that NOBODY testified after Len Savage, meaning that it didn’t matter who was present to hear him. The Government DID NOT put any rebuttal witnesses on the stand – the prosecution rested their case, Len Savage testified, Olofson declined to testify, the defense rested, and then the lawyers gave their closing arguments.
4. Fingery (the ATF expert) did NOT merely "jump from being a WV Highway Patrolman to FTB agent" -- you left out his service in the Army National Guard in Special Forces, nine years in the Marine Corps, and service as a police sniper. You also left out the fact that he was sent through several armorer's courses by ATF and required to write a bunch of extensive white papers on various guns covering that particular gun in as extensive historical and technical detail as the ATF library allows (one of those assignments included the AR15/M16 family) as part of his training as a FTB. . . specifically because they gave him the formal resume that reads as "technical expert." In comparison, Len Savage has ZERO formal training in firearms design and repair and had published nothing -- that means his FORMAL qualifications (which is all I said) were lacking in comparison. Juries notice that when weighing disagreeing witnesses.
5. The failure to actually get Savage in the courtroom was a problem, but one which could have EASILY been overcome (even with an adverse ruling from the bench), by simply asking Savage the proper questions -- such as, "Mr. Savage, if someone stated that this weapon is a machinegun because of thus-and-such," (effectively quoting the ATF expert), "how would you, in your expert opinion, respond?"
6. There was no modification to the ATF standard testing procedure. . . because there is no actual formal procedure. (ATF has consistently REFUSED to adopt an official standardized set of procedures, claiming that official procedures cannot cover the wide variety of possible situations.) They loaded it with ammunition that is commonly commercially available, and tested it. They failed to replicate the issue. They then loaded it with another brand of commonly commercially available ammunition, and they DID, in fact, get the weapon to fire fully automatically in a fully controllable manner. The black letter law definition of "machinegun" was met. The fact that the two tests occurred four months apart is irrelevant, legally speaking. Just as if the original detectives on a murder case failed to detect any useable DNA, but four months later, a new test is used that DOES detect useable DNA is OK.
(Part 3 of 4)
7. The ammunition used in the SECOND test was actually the correct ammunition. Not only was the gun MARKED ".223" instead of "5.56" on the receiver, but ALL earlier Olympic Arms barrels (such as S/N# F7079, the rifle in question -- all Oly guns were made with .223 chambers until 2001, Olofson bought the gun in 1989) were made with SAAMI .223 Remington chambers, even when the barrels were marked "556" or "5.56". This cross-marking of Olympic Arms barrels is well known to ANYONE who has ever done research on the interchangeability of .223/5.56mm. Some experts even recommend never using milspec 5.56mm in a gun chambered for .223. . . however, .223 is just fine in a gun chambered for 5.56mm. THIS gun was chambered for .223. That means the SECOND test was the more accurate one -- as it used the ammunition the rifle was specifically chambered for, rather than the out-of-spec (for .223) military ammunition with the harder primer. This fact makes any claim that ATF cherry picked until they found "special soft primers" ludicrous. Civilian .223 primers are not only "normal" (as opposed to military primers which are specifically designee to be less sensitive), but are appropriate, given the rifle was chambered for the CIVILIAN sporting specs.
8. The defense against the finding of the gun being a machinegun was that it was a malfunction -- a BROKEN gun. There was no evidence of ANY damage. The defense did not indicate any damage or breakage -- and yes, Len Savage WAS permitted to examine the gun long enough to see any such damage -- the defense even stated so on the transcript. (He had about 1/2 an hour, if I recall correctly -- my copy of the transcripts are on my home computer -- under the eyes of the ATF. . . plenty of time to see any damage that would cause - by itself - a runaway gun or fully automatic but controllable fire from a supposedly semiauto.) The "malfunction" caused by installing a pretty much complete (Olofson didn't have autosear -- a device which does not CAUSE fully automatic fire -- it merely makes full auto fire RELIABLE) M16 set of internals had been declared (in 1983) to be, not a "malfunction", but a "machinegun", even if assembled on a semiauto receiver, and even if one or more of the M16 parts are missing. Wham-Bam-Thank-you-Ma'am, defense refuted, and the government assertion that the device in question was, in fact, a "machinegun" was met and confirmed. (That's a finding of fact -- generally unreviewable in appeal, as opposed to findings of law.)
9. Hell, the gun would not pass a FUNCTION CHECK without revealing it was, in fact, set up to fire fully automatically. Olofson, given his MILITARY experience, much less any civilian experience with the AR family, knew enough to tell THAT. Soldiers are trained in BASIC to conduct a function check any time they field strip their rifle. (That way we KNOW that the trigger pack has been checked for mechanical function recently, in case something broke, or PVT Snuffy got cute and broke regs by disassembling his FCG for cleaning and then reassembling it improperly.)
10. Olofson TOLD the guy he lent the rifle to that it would fire more than one shot if the selector was rotated to the third position. That indicates awareness.
(Part 4 of 4)
11. Len Savage testified that a gun was ONLY automatic if it fired without stopping until either it ran out of ammunition, or your released the trigger. If it jams, or for another reason does not fire until ammo is exhausted or the trigger released, it isn't a "machinegun", it's "broken" (even if no breakage is detectable). Therefore, according to Len Savage, the M16A2 and M4 AS CARRIED IN COMBAT, are not "machineguns" under US law. (They have burst limiters.) Nor (according to Len savage) is any gun that EVER jams a "machinegun", even if on other occasions it fires perfectly reliably. Such as many M16s, M60s, SMGs from the MP38 through Ingrams, and other "machineguns" (using the statutory, not military, definition here) that I have witnessed malfunctioning "machineguns" -- because they jammed once. Of course, ATF DID manage to get the gun to fire 60 rounds (both in trigger controlled bursts, and in long magazine emptying bursts) without malfunction once they used commercial off-the-shelf ammo the gun was actually chambered for.
12. They found Olofson's OWN RECORDS that showed he had been buying M16 parts of the very type that were installed in the rifle.
13. They found in Olofson's OWN POSSESSION, a manual on how to convert a semiauto AR15 to a fully automatic gun, using the very M16 parts Olofson purchased.
14. Olofson HIMSELF told an ATF investigator during a formal interview that he knew how to convert a semiauto AR15 into a fully automatic weapon.
15. Olofson HIMSELF sent emails to correspondents proclaiming how he did NOT have to follow US firearms law as a sovereign citizen. Specifically, emails asking about the requirement to register machineguns in accordance with the NFA -- Olofson stated that the NFA didn't APPLY to him as a sovereign citizen (as opposed to "federal citizens" who are subject to the NFA). Yup, he doesn't think that federal laws apply to him, because he thinks there are "federal citizens" (residents of DC, people who received citizenship indirectly via the 14th Amendment like blacks, etc.) and "sovereign citizens" like him who are NOT subject to federal criminal law.
You seem to have missed the part that the public defender DID NOT ASK LEN THE USEFUL QUESTIONS LEN ASKED HIM TO ASK and the fact he WAS NOT ALLOWED TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE WAS RATHER PROBLEMATIC AS WELL AS NOT BEING ABLE TO COUNSEL DURING THE GLORIFIED HIGHWAY PATROLMAN'S TESTIMONY.
The case was over before it started. This was not the fault of Len Savage.
I never claimed Olofson was innocent or guilty, I said that the way the trial was run there was no way it going to come out any other way that it did.
I have a problem with "the fact that Len Savage's formal qualifications as an expert witness were far overshadowed by the ATF expert (despite the fact that Len designs and makes guns for a living, the fact is his formal qualifications are a little light)" when all the former highway patrolman's quals were having worked for ATF for 36 months.
That showed you don't really know much of anything about either Len or Max.
Len's reports of what the public defender did and didn't do and said and didn't say obviously aren't in the court transcripts. So you taking the time to read the whole official transcript still doesn't give the full picture of the fact that Olofson was doomed from the beginning in part because of his own lawyer.
BTW Geo:
If he had wanted to build a machine gun, he had the knowledge as to how to do so as well as the parts, a fully functional proper, non-hammer-follow one. Why would he have built a broken one that was a jam-o-matic if his intent was to build a MG?
Fair question, isn't it?
Here, read this and you can be as guilty as anybody else for possessing the information if that's what establishes guilt.
http://theusualsuspect007.tripod.com/AR2M.pdf
I've got plans on how to build stens with hand tools in a home workshop, too. Want them? Then you could be super guilty of not possessing a mg, but possessing files explaining how they're made. Just like the local engineering library.
Being a Marine, a Sniper, or Specops does not make a person a gunsmith or firearms designer. It means they potentially are able to operate a firearm with a reasonable degree of ability. As a gunsmith, the majority of military personnel who worked in "smithing" jobs that I have met are PARTS CHANGERS at best, with very few exceptions. The AMU smithing team is good, the Marine Marksmanship team smiths are good. Your average grunt or leg, all bets are off on ability and knowledge beyond how to clean and maintain the arms they've been issued (mostly).
Local owner of a SOT (not a smith or designer) has a strong military background and you can tell which firearms he currently has up for sale that were his personal toys for a while because they are grungy as hell.
Friend of mine was 82nd airborne arty for YEARS and he never touched anything but -16s. Never even had him qual with a 92FS and he has a picture of him holding a -60 once, but he never got to shoot it, because he was a arty loader. Past military experience doesn't make anybody a gunsmith anymore than buying a tool chest from snap-on makes a person a race car mechanic.
BTW, your BATFE "Expert" is the person that led to the literal arrest of a Historic Arms Caliber Conversion Upper as a machine gun because he managed to frankenstein it into one by adding a lot of parts. Hell I could make a Chevrolet Suburban a "machine gun" if I was given the leeway he took at FTB on that one. Bonus dildo points for when he filed the charges and warrant for arrest against Len's upper, he listed the wrong address as to which LEO agency was in possession of it. For a while Len was terribly concerned about the fact that one of his uppers might be on the lam from DOJ.
Olofson may or may not have been guilty but he wasn't going to get a fair trial and THAT was my point.
My dad is a Retired USAF officer that often is asked to expert witness in court martial cases in his field of specialty and he can usually tell going into it what the predetermined outcome of the proceedings is lined up to be.
His last case involved him being flown TWICE to Lakenheath to have the defense lawyer that he didn't think was defending his client not ask any of the questions he asked him to nor take any of his advisements.
Unlike Len, however, my dad got paid and the USAF hasn't launched a vendetta against him for arguing with their prosecution, as that was what he was hired to do.
Tom,
I'm going to hit these points individually, to avoid more monster posts.
The fact that YOU know and I know that being a cop, SF, a Marine, or a guy who has had a bunch of FTB enforcement agent training doesn't make you a gun technology expert, whereas actually designing and building marketable guns tends to do so, that doesn't change the fact that the ATF witness had FORMAL qualifications that look good to juries.
Len Savage DOES NOT have formal qualifications of ANY sort in the gun world. Period. As he HIMSELF testified in the case.
Neither did John Moses Browning -- which changes neither the fact that Browning was a genius gun designer NOR the fact that he still lacked the FORMAL qualifications that make an expert witness effective AT TRIAL.
Tom,
Whether or not Len Savage hurt the defense case or not is NOT the same question, NOR is it dependant on, whether or not the defense attorney asked him the correct questions.
The FIRST is a matter of Len's effectiveness at trial.
The SECOND is a totally seperate issue as to who is to BLAME for that ineffectiveness -- In other words, "Did the defense attorney KEEP Len Savage from being effective at trial?"
HOWEVER, when Len Savage testified TWICE that he had, in fact, examined the gun, and then that he had, in fact, decided he didn't need to test fire it meant that any claim AFTERWARDS that he did not have a chance to EFFECTIVELY examine the gun are moot. What he testified to in court was that the defense had it's chance to check out the gun, and the expert witness for the defense had seen everything he needed to see.
Since Len Savage's OWN testimony under oath was that he examined the gun, any claim that "Len was NOT ALLOWED TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE" (your comment July 13, 2010 4:41 PM) is a proven falsehood.
If he didn't feel he had gotten an APPROPRIATE examination of the gun, he should have answered the questions (from BOTH attorneys) by prefacing with something along the lines of, "While I was denied the opportunity to properly and thoroughly examine the rifle, I was allowed to BRIEFLY see it in teh hands of that agent over there. . . " instead of simply answering "Yes," and NOT making it a matter of record that his inspection was too limited to be of use.
Tom,
I have a problem with "the fact that Len Savage's formal qualifications as an expert witness were far overshadowed by the ATF expert (despite the fact that Len designs and makes guns for a living, the fact is his formal qualifications are a little light)" when all the former highway patrolman's quals were having worked for ATF for 36 months.
That showed you don't really know much of anything about either Len or Max.
That "former highway patrolman's quals" were, unfortunately for Len Savage, FORMAL, regardless of the brevity of time. he also had the advantage of being TRAINED on how to answer questions in court -- Len Savage has not been (and his testimony shows that.)
One expert has well over a decade of experience handling weapons OF THE VERY TYPE IN QUESTION, plus 3 years undergoing formal trianing, INCLUDING FORMAL ARMORER COURSES and writing extensive papers.
The other expert has ZERO formal qualifications in gun design or manufacture.
"Some" formal qualifications is more than "No" formal qualifications.
That's WHY ATF send their guys to teh armorer courses and has them write those papers. It looks good to juries.
Part of being an expert witness is ensuring that YOUR resume looks good and professional in comparison to your opposing expert (even if his is still better stacked, you at least want to be in the ballpark), including FORMAL qualifications. Even some AGI armorer courses would have counted. . .
Working as an expert witness, when you Real World experience is undocumentable, and the opposition has reams of paperwork testifying to his expertise, means you are NOT doing your client a favor.
I know which of those two guys I would want troubleshooting, repairing, or designing and building a semiautomatic or utomatic weapon for me.
I know which of those two guys whose resumes I would prefer to present to a judge and jury as evidence of them being an expert.
In this case, they were NOT the same guy.
Unfortunately for the defense, they had the first guy, not the second.
That's not the fault of the court system, the judge, the jury, the ATF, or ANYONE except the defense team -- specifically whoever proposed, vetted, or approved Len Savage as an expert witness for the defense.
Len knows a lot about gun design. NOT a qualified expert witness in a case where he will be facing a guy who has been SPECIFICALLY set up by his employer to have a resume that reads "Expert Firearms Legal and Technological Witness".
Paper counts in court. Forget it at your peril.
Tom,
I have a problem with "the fact that Len Savage's formal qualifications as an expert witness were far overshadowed by the ATF expert (despite the fact that Len designs and makes guns for a living, the fact is his formal qualifications are a little light)" when all the former highway patrolman's quals were having worked for ATF for 36 months.
That showed you don't really know much of anything about either Len or Max.
That "former highway patrolman's quals" were, unfortunately for Len Savage, FORMAL, regardless of the brevity of time. he also had the advantage of being TRAINED on how to answer questions in court -- Len Savage has not been (and his testimony shows that.)
One expert has well over a decade of experience handling weapons OF THE VERY TYPE IN QUESTION, plus 3 years undergoing formal trianing, INCLUDING FORMAL ARMORER COURSES and writing extensive papers.
The other expert has ZERO formal qualifications in gun design or manufacture.
"Some" formal qualifications is more than "No" formal qualifications.
That's WHY ATF send their guys to teh armorer courses and has them write those papers. It looks good to juries.
Part of being an expert witness is ensuring that YOUR resume looks good and professional in comparison to your opposing expert (even if his is still better stacked, you at least want to be in the ballpark), including FORMAL qualifications. Even some AGI armorer courses would have counted. . .
Working as an expert witness, when you Real World experience is undocumentable, and the opposition has reams of paperwork testifying to his expertise, means you are NOT doing your client a favor.
I know which of those two guys I would want troubleshooting, repairing, or designing and building a semiautomatic or utomatic weapon for me.
I know which of those two guys whose resumes I would prefer to present to a judge and jury as evidence of them being an expert.
In this case, they were NOT the same guy.
Unfortunately for the defense, they had the first guy, not the second.
That's not the fault of the court system, the judge, the jury, the ATF, or ANYONE except the defense team -- specifically whoever proposed, vetted, or approved Len Savage as an expert witness for the defense.
Len knows a lot about gun design. NOT a qualified expert witness in a case where he will be facing a guy who has been SPECIFICALLY set up by his employer to have a resume that reads "Expert Firearms Legal and Technological Witness".
Paper counts in court. Forget it at your peril.
Tom,
The fact that Olofson COULD have made his gun run fully auto in many other ways is irrelevant.
He had a gun that WAS NOT in factory configuration, and WAS in a configuration that has been known since at least 1983 to be one way to get a semiauto AR15 to run full auto. That is according to UNCHALLENGED testimony -- Len Savage had PLENTY of opportunities to answer question that WERE posed to him to bring up any evidence he had to the contrary.
I think the FINAL stake in Olofson's case, however, was Len Savage's INSISTANCE that the ONLY reason that gun could POSSIBLY be firing fully automatically was if it was broken.
Despite the fact that the prosecution had ALREADY brought out the fact that the configuration Olofson never denied the gun was in was one way to make it go full auto, and that Olofson HAD the documentation that told him so and how to do it in his possession.
Savage claimed it was unsafe and unreliable. AFTER having seen the video (which the jury also saw) of the ATF firing it fully automatically.
That DESTROYED Savage's credibility.
Basically, Len Savage tried to claim that, without an autosear, an automatic rifle either WILL NOT work, or it CANNOT work properly.
Now, that causes ME to question his TECHNICAL ability becuase of one, indisputable, fact.
Autosears do not make automatic weapons automatic. They make the more reliable when fired automatically.
Assertions that one make make an AR15 fully auto by merely removing the disconnetor are disingenuous.
Removing the disconnector is NOT a method of getting controllable fully automatic fire and you STILL have the issue of the possibility of firing out of battery.
Whereas the ATF demonstrated with Olofson's rifle they could readily fire full mag dumps or trigger controlled bursts with HIS setup.
That provides all teh explanation one would need as to WHY he would do it that way -- popping the disconnector in and out is even harder than simply not running the swtich to the unmarked thrid position.
Add in UNCHALLENGED written evidence that Olofson purchased the VERY TYPE of M16 FCG parts that were found in his rifle, but had not been SOLD with that rifle, and that Olofson IN WRITING stated that federal machingun laws SO NOT apply to him, and you have a pretty solid case that shows Motive, Opportunity, Method, and indicates quite clearly Intent.
That's a slam-dunk conviction.
Spin it ANY way you like. This is one of the FEW cases where ATF got it right.
Geodkyt,
The video shown to the jury showed the weapon firing faster than an M16 on cyclic.
This means the weapon was firing out of battery due to the hammer follow.
That means it was a malfunctioning firearm.
And had the ATF not had to re-test the weapon to get the result they wanted I would agree with you.
Unfortunately the ATF had the weapon in their possession, tested it and determined that it was NOT a machine gun. The ATF maintained possession of the weapon and then it became a machine gun.
The weapon was never classified as a machine gun until it had been under ATF control for a long time.
I'm not saying that what you are saying is untrue (I don't really have a dog in the fight except that I don't want any of my AR's being classified as a machinegun for a slam fire) just that I couldn't convict Olofson because the ATF was shady as hell in how they made their case.
That gives me reasonable doubt. I expect all public servants to be above reproach, and in this case the ATF failed to be above reproach.
ATF Agent vs Len Savage in Courthouse:
ATF: You can't get any of your evidence out of this room until I'm done loading mine out.
Len: I believe you are an ATF agent, not a US Marshall, so you have no jurisdiction here.
ATF: If you don't wait for me to finish loading out my evidence I might "accidentally" buttstroke you in the head with this rifle.
True stories of the BATF(E)
And I'll stand by the fact that the case was doomed from the outset and blaming Len for doing his best with an uncooperative lawyer is unfair. Like I said with my father, he does 2-3 Court Martial trials a month, on average, and he can generally tell going in who is "going to win" regardless of the actual facts of the case.
As for quals. Best gunsmith that came out of my gunsmith college never finished the course. He's had a thriving business ever since and most of the people that did three year degrees don't even fiddle with guns anymore.
I realize juries don't understand that, but I have no evidence to believe that Max was any kind of expert just like I am curious why GW let the world see he had some bad grades in college and the one of "hope and change" has all his transcripts sealed.
I'd like to see the highway patrolman build an AR/M rifle in a timely fashion without any books or aids. Five bucks said he couldn't do it.
AM,
The rifle fired faster than a current production M16 rifle on full auto.
And your point would be?
NOT having a rate reducing mechanism does not remove an item from classification as a "machinegun".
Earlier versions of the AR15 and XM16 fired at the rate shown -- were they not "machineguns", despite being built and registered as such in the 1950's and 1960's?
An AR15 with an NFA-registered Lightning Link would ALSO fire faster than a current production M16 -- in fact, at about the rate shown.
Olofson wasn't charged with having an unregistered M16.
He was charged with knowingly possessing an unregistered machinegun, and transferring said gun without proper papers.
He was in possession of a gun with a combination of full auto parts that ATF (publicly, as far back as 1983) AND documentation Olofson had in his possession had already declared could turn a semiauto AR15 into a machingun.
According to UNCHALLENGED testimony, that combination of parts WAS NOT EVER used by the rifle's manufacturer to build a semiautomatic AR15.
The Magic Machinegun Fairy didn't put that part there, and NEITHER did Olympic Arms. But Olofson HAD purchased such parts AND had been saying that the NFA didn't apply to him personally before the incident.
There was NO testimony that ANY parts were worn in such a way that COULD have resulted in a malfunction. If there WAS wear consistant with inducing malfunction, Savage should have testified to that. He did not.
In fact, the ATF witness did a VERY good job at establishing a credible definition of "hammer follow malfunction", that differenciated between a true mechanical malfunction that induces an unintended hammer follow, versus intentionally tweaking the gun so hammer follow will give full automatic fire.
In other words, the "hammer follow" in question wasn't a "malfunction" -- it was INTENDED. ("Not a bug -- it's a feature!")
Other guns have been converted to full auto by intentionally inducing hammer follow -- prior to May 1986, many legally.
Admiteedly, it would be more reliable and less wasteful of ammo with an autosear. . . but autosears have NEVER been part of the statute -- machineguns are defined by PEFORMANCE.
If Savage had not had the opportunity to examine the gun closely enough to determine if such wear occurred, he should NOT have testified that he had, in fact, examined the gun -- without making it EXPLICITLY clear in THAT answer that his examination was so limited by the government as to be worthless.
Savage testified that, effectively, no gun without an autosear or other rate reducing mechnism could be a machinegun.
Unfortunately, that has NEVER been recognized as legally true -- and has EXPLICITLY been refuted by ATF about a DECADE before Olofson's rifle had even been built.
If he had testified to the specific wear or damage that allowed the gun to experience an UNintended hammer follow, THAT would have been a defense.
He didn't, because there was no such damage or wear.
For interest, you really ought to actually READ the Olofson case appeal, and read the specific reasons WHY his appeal was rejected.
AM,
The rifle fired faster than a current production M16 rifle on full auto.
And your point would be?
NOT having a rate reducing mechanism does not remove an item from classification as a "machinegun".
Earlier versions of the AR15 and XM16 fired at the rate shown -- were they not "machineguns", despite being built and registered as such in the 1950's and 1960's?
An AR15 with an NFA-registered Lightning Link would ALSO fire faster than a current production M16 -- in fact, at about the rate shown.
Olofson wasn't charged with having an unregistered M16.
He was charged with knowingly possessing an unregistered machinegun, and transferring said gun without proper papers.
He was in possession of a gun with a combination of full auto parts that ATF (publicly, as far back as 1983) AND documentation Olofson had in his possession had already declared could turn a semiauto AR15 into a machingun.
According to UNCHALLENGED testimony, that combination of parts WAS NOT EVER used by the rifle's manufacturer to build a semiautomatic AR15.
The Magic Machinegun Fairy didn't put that part there, and NEITHER did Olympic Arms. But Olofson HAD purchased such parts AND had been saying that the NFA didn't apply to him personally before the incident.
There was NO testimony that ANY parts were worn in such a way that COULD have resulted in a malfunction. If there WAS wear consistant with inducing malfunction, Savage should have testified to that. He did not.
In fact, the ATF witness did a VERY good job at establishing a credible definition of "hammer follow malfunction", that differenciated between a true mechanical malfunction that induces an unintended hammer follow, versus intentionally tweaking the gun so hammer follow will give full automatic fire.
In other words, the "hammer follow" in question wasn't a "malfunction" -- it was INTENDED. ("Not a bug -- it's a feature!")
Other guns have been converted to full auto by intentionally inducing hammer follow -- prior to May 1986, many legally.
Admiteedly, it would be more reliable and less wasteful of ammo with an autosear. . . but autosears have NEVER been part of the statute -- machineguns are defined by PEFORMANCE.
If Savage had not had the opportunity to examine the gun closely enough to determine if such wear occurred, he should NOT have testified that he had, in fact, examined the gun -- without making it EXPLICITLY clear in THAT answer that his examination was so limited by the government as to be worthless.
Savage testified that, effectively, no gun without an autosear or other rate reducing mechnism could be a machinegun.
Unfortunately, that has NEVER been recognized as legally true -- and has EXPLICITLY been refuted by ATF about a DECADE before Olofson's rifle had even been built.
If he had testified to the specific wear or damage that allowed the gun to experience an UNintended hammer follow, THAT would have been a defense.
He didn't, because there was no such damage or wear.
For interest, you really ought to actually READ the Olofson case appeal, and read the specific reasons WHY his appeal was rejected.
Tom:
Again, actual, Real World ability has absolutely NOTHING to do with formal expert witness qualifications. Unless you are generally recognized by the GENERAL PUBLIC as being an expert (as, say, some guy who was design chief of the AR15/M16/M4 team at Colt Firearms, even if he only had a 2 year AA in English would be. . . his professional work as a senior design engineer at a publicly RECOGNIZED manufacturer of the gun in question would be its own credential), hands on experience (My Cousin Vinny notwithstanding) doesn't stack up well to the average jury member against documented paper quals and credentials.
Sorry, such is life. In court, especially in front of a jury, you don't need to BE right -- you need them to THINK you are right. Even if your creds are a paper tiger, so long as no one in the jury realizes it, your credentials give your testimony more weight than the uncredentialed (but Real World competent) opposing expert.
If I recall correctly, Len Savage's wins against ATF in the past over gun designs have PRIMARILY been administrative hearings about his OWN designs, not jury cases -- his "expert credentials" do not come into play when testifying in a hearing where he is a party and there is no jury to be swayed.
In the previous case where he actually worked as an expert witness (US v. Kwan), he managed to make the prosecution AND the prosecution expert witness look either foolish or disingenuous in regards to the claim that the M14 style rifle had been converted into a machinegun. Meanwhile, the prosecution did NOT manage to make Savage look like a guy who whose resume was more inflated than not.
Geodkyt,
You insult me by assuming I have not read the appeal records that I linked.
Fuck you.
I understand the legal argument. The legal argument is morally reprehensible.
The rate of fire is important because a hammer follow malfunction IS CAUSING THE WEAPON TO FIRE OUT OF BATTERY.
That means the bolt lugs are not properly engaged. This is a malfunction. This malfunction will lead to bolt lugs shearing off and total bolt failure. This is a fucking dangerous condition and a serious malfunction.
And I understand your LEGAL argument. What YOU ARE FUCKING FAILING TO UNDERSTAND is that this set up a legal precedent that ANY MALFUNCTION MAKES A FIREARM A MACHINEGUN.
I hope you get a dirty firing pin and unload a whole fucking magazine and get arrested for owning an unregistered machine gun, prosecuted for manuacturing a machine gun without a license, and sentenced to thirty months in ClubFed.
Can you seriously fucking say that it was RIGHT that Olofson was convicted? If you can I do not want to be your friend or aquaintence. If you are so divorced from reality that Legal and Illegal do not have a bearing at all with Right and Wrong then you need to check yourself before you wreck yourself.
The Olofson precedent makes bad laws, NFA 34, GCA 68, and GOPA 86, worse.
I HAVE READ THE CASE.
POINT BEING:
HE WAS SCREWED BLUED AND TATTOOED BEFORE THE FIRST TRIAL STARTED.
That doesn't make Len a bad witness or not an expert.
The LAW says "If it fires more than one round for a single pull of the trigger, it is a Title II firearm."
FWIW, the law doesn't give excuses for malfs. That's why if you work on a semi it is best to test fire by dry fire and single rounds before you "check your work" even if you are a legal smith, as the LAW IS THE LAW IS THE LAW.
Post a Comment