Man convicted for Gun Control violation.

[Technosoul]

In a breaking news story a man was convicted for transfering a machine gun to another person when a automatic weapon missfired at a shooting range in rapid fire like a machine gun, due to a defect in the design of the rifle.

The sentence is for 30 months behind bars.

Thousands of gun owners have simular guns in their collections and they are worried that the same thing counld happen to them.

The man served in our military with an honorable discharge and is active in the National Guard. He had however a past record of gun violations because he carried a firearm in public and used it to intimidate someone.

But his past record did not include the defectvie rifle in question.

So what do you think? Did the judge and jury do the right thing in convicting him for having a defective automatic weapon?

[Squeaky Wheels]

How did he "transfer" the weapon? Did he simply let the guy try it out at the shooting range, or did he sell it to him without filing the proper paperwork?

If no one got hurt, then 30 months is a lot, even with a prior conviction. But the government takes private ownership of machine guns very serioously.

[The Dunedan]

I'm familiar with this case. The fellow's weapon wasn't a machinegun, it was a perfectly legal semi-auto rifle which malfunctioned. It happened to malfunction in the hands of a friend, in front of an ATF agent.

Repeat: the weapon was NOT designed to be a machine gun. It was broken, not functioning properly, and uncontrollable. It's not at all uncommon for a "runaway" like this to destroy the gun and injure/kill the shooter because, again, the gun was never designed to function this way. Kablooey.

He loaned his perfectly legal rifle to a friend. It malfunctioned, potentially with lethal effect, in a known type of weapons failure. For this, he's now doing time.

Insane.

[LadiesMan217]

Sounds pretty insane to me, the way you describe it Dunedan.

[Squeaky Wheels]

Quote by: The Dunedan I'm familiar with this case. The fellow's weapon wasn't a machinegun, it was a perfectly legal semi-auto rifle which malfunctioned. It happened to malfunction in the hands of a friend, in front of an ATF agent. Repeat: the weapon was NOT designed to be a machine gun. It was broken, not functioning properly, and uncontrollable. It's not at all uncommon for a "runaway" like this to destroy the gun and injure/kill the shooter because, again, the gun was never designed to function this way. Kablooey.

Cool!

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Squeaky Wheels How did he "transfer" the weapon? Did he simply let the guy try it out at the shooting range, or did he sell it to him without filing the proper paperwork? If no one got hurt, then 30 months is a lot, even with a prior conviction. But the government takes private ownership of machine guns very serioously.

A close friend of his was loaned the rifle so he could take it to a shooting range, a which time it became defective and missfired like a machine gun, after working normally. His friend did not raise a complaint but somehow another person at the range reported it. It was not a machine gun nor an automatic weapon converted for that purpose. It happened due to some defect that represented poor construction of the gun which was sold as a legal automatic rifle. A problem that the owner was not aware of concerning the particular gun that he had used before without such an incident happening. When the authorities tested the gun it did not act like a machine gun the first two times it was tested, but did missfire in that manner the 3rd time they tested it.

[Rog]

I watch on CNN that it was a automatic rifle, and people can remove a little part of it to make it fully automatic which is illegal. when people break laws, they get punished. I think 30 months is way too long, but he had past incidents with guns before.

[The Dunedan]

IT WAS A BLOODY MALFUNCTION.

CNN LIES about gun stories. When the Ugly Gun Ban came up for death in 2004, they falsified several stories (one most famously involving a staged video) on which they were later called and caught.

As for "removing a little part," horseshit. Do you know what that does? On an AR-15, such as the rifle in question, you can literally remove ANYTHING YOU WANT and all it will do is cause the weapon to not fire at all. On an AK-derivative weapon this can create what's known as a "slam-firing" rifle, which is impossible to control, hugely dangerous to the user, illegal as Hell, and more-or-less known to the entire world as a suicidally bad idea.

The malfunction in question was of a type called a "runaway," whereby a severely worn moving part inside the gun finally ceased to function properly and caused the weapon to discharge the entire magazine with no input from the shooter. He had no way to stop it once it started, no idea that it was going to start in the first place, and no intent of ever causing it to do so.

CNN LIED, LIES, and always will LIE when it comes to gun issues.

[shawmutt]

Any cites on this?

Clevert said the key was not what parts were in the weapon but whether it operated in automatic mode. He played a video used at trial showing ATF agents firing Olofson's weapon in automatic mode. He also noted that in one ATF test, the rifle didn't fire automatically when military-grade ammunition was used. Haanstad said Olofson had provided weapons and ammunition to so many people he couldn't keep track. A search of his home turned up books on converting rifles to fully automatic, and e-mail on his computer showed he bought M-16 parts, records show.

Postbulletin.com: Wisconsin man gets 30 months over transfer of gun - Wed, May 14, 2008

Seems that there's more to this story than a simple malfunction.

[Rog]

Quote by: The Dunedan IT WAS A BLOODY MALFUNCTION. CNN LIES about gun stories. When the Ugly Gun Ban came up for death in 2004, they falsified several stories (one most famously involving a staged video) on which they were later called and caught. As for "removing a little part," horseshit. Do you know what that does? On an AR-15, such as the rifle in question, you can literally remove ANYTHING YOU WANT and all it will do is cause the weapon to not fire at all. On an AK-derivative weapon this can create what's known as a "slam-firing" rifle, which is impossible to control, hugely dangerous to the user, illegal as Hell, and more-or-less known to the entire world as a suicidally bad idea. The malfunction in question was of a type called a "runaway," whereby a severely worn moving part inside the gun finally ceased to function properly and caused the weapon to discharge the entire magazine with no input from the shooter. He had no way to stop it once it started, no idea that it was going to start in the first place, and no intent of ever causing it to do so. CNN LIED, LIES, and always will LIE when it comes to gun issues.

Come on, have you actually watch CNN? Lue Doubs? he is the biggest gun loving guy ever.

[Derek Wolff]

Regardless of Lou Doubs what DuneDan said is factual.

Seems that there's more to this story than a simple malfunction.

That does make it more likely, but not proven. I know people who purchase such books just out of interest, one of them even legally owns silencers. They have never made a weapon automatic for the reason DuneDan said. Even if you can, the weapon is not controllable, and its not much use in any practicality including combat. You would just ruin a rifle that cost you 1000+ dollars and break the law. Not to mention the massive amounts of ammunition you would waste. Thats a lot of money!


They should take apart the weapon and look for modifications. If its found to be a malfunction the arms-dealer that sold him the weapon should go to jail for 30 months.

[The Dunedan]

He played a video used at trial showing ATF agents firing Olofson's weapon in automatic mode.

Ever seen the video in question? The BATFEeb "tester" is holding the weapon as far from his face as he can manage because HE, just like everyone ELSE, knew the weapon was dangerously MALFUNCTIONING and was worried it might blow his face off. It wasn't firing in "automatic mode" because IT HAD NO SUCH FEATURE. IT WAS BROKEN AND NOT WORKING PROPERLY.

He also noted that in one ATF test, the rifle didn't fire automatically when military-grade ammunition was used.

Because military 5.56mm ammo has harder primers than civilian .223 ammo (same dimensions, different charges and chamber pressures) and doesn't fire as easily IN THE EVENT OF A CATASTROPHIC AND UNCONTROLLABLE MALFUNCTION. Military 5.56 has harder primers SPECIFICALLY to prevent THIS TYPE OF ACCIDENT.

. A search of his home turned up books on converting rifles to fully automatic,

Which proves nothing more than academic interest. I own several of those books myself, by guys like P. A. Luty. Since the weapon WASN'T CONVERTED and WASN'T FIRING FULL AUTO, this is irrelevant.

and e-mail on his computer showed he bought M-16 parts, records show.

Notice they don't tell you WHICH parts. Unless the parts in question are: Bolt, bolt carrier, selector switch, 3-round burst cam, sear, or disconnector, this is irrelevant. "M-16 parts" could mean grips, a barrel, or any number of other bits-n-pieces which have no bearing on the weapon's function.

If its found to be a malfunction the arms-dealer that sold him the weapon should go to jail for 30 months.

Why, because a piece of metal wore down under repeated heavy use? Do you also want to throw car manufacturers in jail when a CV Joint wears out? Get real.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: TheDunedan Since the weapon WASN'T CONVERTED and WASN'T FIRING FULL AUTO, this is irrelevant.

Quote by: The Dunedan Notice they don't tell you WHICH parts. Unless the parts in question are: Bolt, bolt carrier, selector switch, 3-round burst cam, sear, or disconnector, this is irrelevant.

Caps lock doesn't make you more right. You are basing your assertions on your preconceived notion that the media doesn't get gun stories right. While this may or may not be the case, your knee-jerk ad hominems against CNN et al does nothing to further the debate. You're right, they didn't mention which M16 parts were purchased, but how can you conclude that they were not the parts needed to convert this rifle?

Ever seen the video in question?

No. Do you have a link?