PDA

View Full Version : Scary precedent by 7th Circuit Appeals?


cfm117
05-04-2009, 9:25 PM
AR-15 malfunction resulting in MG transfering conviction. I read about this case when he first went to trial awhile back. This is the outcome of the appeal. Kinda scary.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97116

hoffmang
05-04-2009, 9:29 PM
Olofson admitted that he knew his gun would go FA (to the ATF at a raid in his house...) If he had instead gone to have his gun repaired when he first noticed it was broken, he wouldn't have a problem today.

-Gene

Roadrunner
05-04-2009, 9:37 PM
Olofson admitted that he knew his gun would go FA (to the ATF at a raid in his house...) If he had instead gone to have his gun repaired when he first noticed it was broken, he wouldn't have a problem today.

-Gene

:36::83:Yet another reason to decriminalize FA.:25::gun_bandana:

popndrop
05-04-2009, 9:41 PM
another article on the same issue -
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=192&Itemid=37

Very scary stuff -A few months ago I had a shotgun that I just got back from the gunsmith that was popping both barrels on the skeet range - I had to get it back in the shop the following weekend - but I had no idea that the gun being broken was somehow a crime, or that I could get in trouble for it. I had mine fixed because it was broken, not because I thought even for a minute that it was a crime...SCARY stuff!!!

umoja
05-04-2009, 10:38 PM
Very scary stuff -A few months ago I had a shotgun that I just got back from the gunsmith that was popping both barrels on the skeet range - I had to get it back in the shop the following weekend - but I had no idea that the gun being broken was somehow a crime, or that I could get in trouble for it. I had mine fixed because it was broken, not because I thought even for a minute that it was a crime...SCARY stuff!!!

In light of the ruling I'd be wary of posting that on a public forum :P

hoffmang
05-04-2009, 10:51 PM
Having your firearm break and reasonably taking it to a smith to repair it is not a concern. Go read US v. Staples. Loaning your broken semiauto to a guy you don't really know when you know the rifle will go FA can be a risk to our criminal record.

-Gene

Sinixstar
05-04-2009, 10:52 PM
another article on the same issue -
http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=192&Itemid=37

Very scary stuff -A few months ago I had a shotgun that I just got back from the gunsmith that was popping both barrels on the skeet range - I had to get it back in the shop the following weekend - but I had no idea that the gun being broken was somehow a crime, or that I could get in trouble for it. I had mine fixed because it was broken, not because I thought even for a minute that it was a crime...SCARY stuff!!!

I think part of the problem was Olofson KNEW the rifle was "broken" (there is some debate as to whether or not it was, but for the sake of this conversation we'll give him the benefit of the doubt) - and not only CHOSE not to get it repaired, but actually lent it out to someone knowing it was broken and could/would go FA.

Perhaps initially it was a simple malfunction, but by choosing the malfunctioning state over the properly functioning state, one is essentially choosing full auto over normal operation. Whether or not that makes it a machine gun is open for debate, but clearly the courts think it does - and it is a pretty strong argument.

A big part of proving a crime is intent, and Olofson's intent was seemingly clear.

Sinixstar
05-04-2009, 10:55 PM
Look at it this way.
If you go to an ATM, the machine malfunctions and spits out $20,000 instead of the $20 you asked for - if you take the money and run, it's still theft. If they track you down, you will still get arrested. Why? Because even though the malfunction was not your fault, you still chose to take the money and run. Your intent was to take advantage of a situation for your own gain, even though you knew what was happening wasn't right.

Same situation here. It's not the fact that the gun malfunctioned, it's that the gun obviously malfunctioned, and the choice was made to take advantage of the situation. the intent was to have a full auto that you're not legally permitted to have, just as your intent with the ATM is to take $20k that doesn't belong to you.

rabagley
05-04-2009, 11:30 PM
Olofson was a moron, and is paying the price for being a moron. Even if his side of the story is completely and 100% correct, he was a moron.

If you have an AR where the safety goes to "the happy place", get it fixed right away. Don't take it out to ranges, tell people about it, or, for the love of Pete, EVER loan it out to an immature teenager you don't know from Adam who is basically guaranteed to take it to the range and show it to everyone he possibly can.

If you do any of that, you are a complete and utter moron, and will be making new friends in prison "Real Soon Now(tm)".

gunsmith
05-04-2009, 11:34 PM
Look at it this way.
If you go to an ATM, the machine malfunctions and spits out $20,000 instead of the $20 you asked for - if you take the money and run, it's still theft. If they track you down, you will still get arrested. Why? Because even though the malfunction was not your fault, you still chose to take the money and run. Your intent was to take advantage of a situation for your own gain, even though you knew what was happening wasn't right.

Same situation here. It's not the fact that the gun malfunctioned, it's that the gun obviously malfunctioned, and the choice was made to take advantage of the situation. the intent was to have a full auto that you're not legally permitted to have, just as your intent with the ATM is to take $20k that doesn't belong to you.

every time you go to the ATM , wear a monkey suit, and if you get the large cash bonus make sure to report your "lost" ATM card right away, otherwise, someone may think you're not on the level...OH, and never lend your "broken" gun to bigmouths!

yellowfin
05-04-2009, 11:48 PM
Speaking of the 7th, the Chicago case is up for arguement. http://www.chicagoguncase.com/2009/04/24/progress-and-an-argument-date/

I'm a little disappointed they didn't go for summary judgement, but I know that in oral arguments Mr. Gura will rip the opposition to shreds. As to how much that matters if the judges have a predetermined way they want to go with this I don't know...I gather that the 2nd Circuit will flat out ignore any possibility of a pro 2A ruling because they'd rather jump off a skyscraper. Hey Gene, since you were right on every detail on Nordyke, do you know much about the judges that the 7th has, particularly this panel? Is it a good court to be working on this in? I know that Gura is the trump card to play, but is the deck in our favor or at very least fair?

Rhys898
05-05-2009, 12:37 AM
I think we actually want this one to go against us as it will be more likely to get us back to the Supreme Court while we still have a panel likely to support nationwide incorporation.

Jer

7x57
05-05-2009, 8:22 AM
I think we actually want this one to go against us as it will be more likely to get us back to the Supreme Court while we still have a panel likely to support nationwide incorporation.


I doubt it. We already have a circuit split, so I bet we want as many circuits as possible on our side.

7x57

Rhys898
05-05-2009, 9:27 AM
I thought we didn't want to use the nunchuck case for incorporation...

7x57
05-05-2009, 9:38 AM
I thought we didn't want to use the nunchuck case for incorporation...

We don't want it to go to SCOTUS. AFAIK it's just fine if it provides a circuit split to propel one of the other incorporation cases to SCOTUS.

7x57

DDT
05-05-2009, 12:56 PM
Losing by our side isn't needed to get in front of SCOTUS for clarification/spanking of infringing states. If Chicago loses they are very likely to appeal to SCOTUS.

Publius
05-05-2009, 1:43 PM
Losing by our side isn't needed to get in front of SCOTUS for clarification/spanking of infringing states. If Chicago loses they are very likely to appeal to SCOTUS.

Is the Chicago case likely to be be resolved in time to get before SCOTUS before they have to decide whether to take Maloney's nunchaku case? Maloney has a deadline of 26 June for his petition for certiorari. It seems like Nordyke might be the only case with a chance of beating Maloney to the draw, as it were.

DDT
05-05-2009, 1:51 PM
Is the Chicago case likely to be be resolved in time to get before SCOTUS before they have to decide whether to take Maloney's nunchaku case? Maloney has a deadline of 26 June for his petition for certiorari. It seems like Nordyke might be the only case with a chance of beating Maloney to the draw, as it were.

I don't have insight into the Nordyke planning meetings but based on Don's postings here I don't think there is a definite plan to appeal to SCOTUS at this time. I don't know how long they have to decide.

I don't think any petitions they grant would be heard until October anyway. It is possible that they'd consolidate all 3 major cases currently working their way up the system?

snowboarder
05-05-2009, 7:58 PM
This is just insane people. I don't care if he knew that it was "broken", the firearm in question is without a doubt a SEMI automatic rifle. For him to be sent to a god forsaken penitentiary for something like that is the most unAmerican thing I've heard of. To hell with those a*****e judges to say something so outrageous and ridiculous...that it doesn't matter that ATF had to manipulate and fiddle around for FOUR MONTHS before they got the rifle to spit out a couple of rounds and jam.

If this isn't a miscarriage of justice and a railroading I don't know what is. How can anyone who is sane say something along the lines of "he deserved it". In case you forgot, he is a fellow gun enthusiast who just got screwed out of his rights as a citizen by an out of control agency (ATF) and some overfed, overpaid morons in black robes. The state is more lenient with murderers, paedophiles and all sorts of perverts who commit a crime against another human but were "insane" at the time. His only crime was laziness and for that he deserves a fine...not 3 years up the river sharing space with all kinds of hardcore trash.

This man served his country for god sake. Their is something VERY wrong going on in this county.

SB

Sinixstar
05-05-2009, 9:56 PM
over reaction much?

The laws may suck -but they are the laws. Violate them, and ultimately in my opinion you are no better then the criminals the laws supposedly are meant to protect us from.

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about things. Olofson's actions were exactly the WRONG way. Perhaps the punishment is harsh, but if you can't do the time, don't do the (supposed) crime as they say.

7x57
05-05-2009, 10:07 PM
Fine. I doubt I'd be happy with how he was treated if I knew all the facts. But...we're at war. The other side wants us to lose our freedom and our cultural heritage, and will use any degree of force to take it from us. That is war, and it ain't pretty. One way to become a casualty is to be stupid. One of the rules is that we're here to win, and we're not going to throw the game (as we would if we went to court with a 2A claim on his behalf) to try to rescue him from his own stupidity.

It sucks, and I'd probably sing a different tune if I were the casualty, but I don't see how it can be different. Maybe my kids will be safer from arbitrary punishment of gun owners, but we are not.

7x57

Sinixstar
05-05-2009, 10:59 PM
The other side wants us to lose our freedom and our cultural heritage, and will use any degree of force to take it from us.

That's a gross over simplification.
The vast majority of the people who push an anti-gun ideology simply have no direct experience or knowledge of guns. I wrote up the reasons why in another thread, and don't feel like rehashing the details. The long and short of it is however, that by and large the vast majority of antis are not some social communist crazed loonies who want to create a police state. Are there a few of those out there? Probably. Most are simply naive and uneducated in the reality of guns, and don't understand why their head in the clouds ideas will never work.


update:
I lied - here's the link : http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=178478

7x57
05-05-2009, 11:13 PM
by and large the vast majority of antis are not some social communist crazed loonies who want to create a police state.

It isn't the casual anti-gunners that are the problem--the mere fact that they know nothing about guns means that, left to themselves, they have few opinions about them. They are mostly anti because they believed someone, who believed someone, who believed someone....

But the sources of the ideas are not those people, and when you sets yourself up as an authority then you are culpable for knowing what you claim whether you in fact do or not. What the 2A means is not a secret and is historically incontrovertible, so whatever you think of the RKBA as a transcendent moral right there is no question about the legal right. The reason we have to argue about it is that we have people willing to deliberately lie and falsify legal, historical, and statistical data. The fact that it was upheld quite explicitly by a positive gun culture is also incontrovertible, and also made quite clear by the founders. The antis know this, and specifically target that culture. They are pretty clear about that.

Those people are culpable as either lying about being experts or lying about the facts. Those who listen to them uncritically and repeat it as fact in the media are culpable as having chosen to report a single partisan position monolithically, without revealing that they were pursuing a clear agenda.

Your point is good so far as it applies to, say, my neighbor the gun-banner (I'm sure I must have one, though they don't talk about it to me). It isn't enough to excuse the law professors and historians who knowingly manufactured a fantasy history and fantasy Constitution for a century, or those who reported to my neighbor the gun-banner that those law professors and historians were unquestionably correct and their fantasy America was the only possible understanding of the facts.

To use your rather colorful terms, it's unlikely that my hypothetical neighbor is a social communist crazed loony who wants to create a police state, but that doesn't mean they haven't listened to and believed some social communist crazed loonies who want to create a police state. :)

7x57

steadyrock
05-05-2009, 11:21 PM
This is just insane people. I don't care if he knew that it was "broken", the firearm in question is without a doubt a SEMI automatic rifle. For him to be sent to a god forsaken penitentiary for something like that is the most unAmerican thing I've heard of. To hell with those a*****e judges to say something so outrageous and ridiculous...that it doesn't matter that ATF had to manipulate and fiddle around for FOUR MONTHS before they got the rifle to spit out a couple of rounds and jam.

If this isn't a miscarriage of justice and a railroading I don't know what is. How can anyone who is sane say something along the lines of "he deserved it". In case you forgot, he is a fellow gun enthusiast who just got screwed out of his rights as a citizen by an out of control agency (ATF) and some overfed, overpaid morons in black robes. The state is more lenient with murderers, paedophiles and all sorts of perverts who commit a crime against another human but were "insane" at the time. His only crime was laziness and for that he deserves a fine...not 3 years up the river sharing space with all kinds of hardcore trash.

This man served his country for god sake. Their is something VERY wrong going on in this county.

SB


At least one person gets it. Twentysomething posts into this thread and so far only one post talking about the precedent this will set, that the government need not supply evidence so long as the judge is on their side. That's the part of this that worries me. There is far too large a problem with activist judges for this kind of precedent to be OK.

From what I've read, I agree with others that Olofson seems to have broken the law and deserves some kind of appropriate punishment for that. But as mentioned above, it's the precedent and the methods used during the trial that concern me more than the actual defendant's crime or sentence.

Sinixstar
05-05-2009, 11:23 PM
It isn't the casual anti-gunners that are the problem--the mere fact that they know nothing about guns means that, left to themselves, they have few opinions about them. They are mostly anti because they believed someone, who believed someone, who believed someone....

McCarthy for example is not some crazy police statist, neither are the Brady's.
They're simply people who know (or knew, they've gotten a bit of an education since then) very little about guns - and had horrific experiences related to guns happen to them. Their stories are very compelling on an emotional level - which is why absent of direct knowledge and experience - they win people over.

I mean, James Brady was Reagan's press secretary. You really think they're left wing loons who are out to strip away the constitution? Of course not. They're people who have or had very little knowledge about guns, and had a horrible experience happen to them - and are reacting in a highly illogical way (which is typical in the case of a tragedy).
Same with McCarthy - her husband was mowed down by a psycho on the LIRR. She has little knowledge or experience with guns, and is reacting emotionally (again as is typical).

7x57
05-05-2009, 11:58 PM
McCarthy for example is not some crazy police statist, neither are the Brady's.

That may be true, but in fact they are harmless left to themselves. I can drive down to Santa Monica and find plenty of people with irrational beliefs, but no one listens to them. Neither Carolyn McCarthy nor the guy with the sign about George Bush poisoning his cat are experts at anything.

When Sarah Brady speaks (and I use her as an exemplar of the class), she has law professors who claim that her agenda is Constitutional, chiefs of law enforcement who claim that her agenda will reduce crime, and criminologists who claim to have statistics that support the crime reduction. It is those law professors, not Sarah Brady, who are the source of the collective rights interpretation, and those criminologists who are the source of numbers like "a gun in the home is forty-two times more likely to kill a family member than to be used defensively." Sarah Brady repeats those legal theories and those numbers because she has experts who will back them with their names and reputations.

I think this distinction is a bit important, because we simply can never win over Carolyn McCarthy or Sarah Brady. Fortunately, we don't have to. We only have to go after, by the rules of their profession, the experts who put their credentials behind falsehoods. We've been doing that, with the kind of legal and historical scholarship that, e.g. Heller cited, and the kind of statistics that people like Gary Kleck have compiled. The guy behind the "forty two times" number (or whatever it was precisely) lost his job over that paper, I believe, because it was simply too outrageous to pass professional muster.

Those are the people I am talking about, though I will not entirely let Sarah Brady off the hook. Personal tragedies do not give you a free pass when you go beyond your private grief and intentionally impact other people's lives as a result. If it is admirable to use your grief as a catalyst to help others, then it is unavoidable to conclude that it is despicable to use your grief as a catalyst to hurt others. Sarah Brady may not have great moral culpability for concluding that guns must have been the problem and not human evil, but she is culpable for being impervious to either logic or evidence. The policies she advocates kill, and she has some responsibility for that.

Not anything like as much as the blood on the hands of those who have lied about the law and about the statistics, however.

ETA: wow, I actually argued all the way through that without once bringing up the third group of people, who *are* police statists (or something) and who use the Sarah Bradys as well as the crooked law professors and criminologists as useful tools for the extension of power. They probably are the most culpable of all, but I don't think I had brought them up before so I left them out of this post too.

7x57

yellowfin
05-06-2009, 12:06 AM
^ That's admirable perhaps in a humanitarian way to extend the benefit of the doubt to Brady and McCarthy. Now I will smash it. After 20 years, they know better. Anyone with an IQ over that of a bean sprout knows better after working a paid living around the subject. They're either incompetent or evil by this point, no possible 3rd direction. No way in hell can they plead ignorance or emotion, which is ignorance itself merely justified by appeal to humanity.

Sinixstar
05-06-2009, 12:08 AM
I just don't give mankind credit for being that cunning. I have a hard time believing that there's really a conspiracy to "take over" so to speak. Perhaps you see a monster, but I see a blob fumbling about.

There's a great quote a friend of mine (who happens to be in the military) has on his facebook page. I'm not sure where it's from - but it's very fitting:


"There is no conspiracy, nobody is in charge, it's a headless blunder operating under the illusion of a master-plan, big-brother is not watching you."


That kind of sums it up I believe.

As for the lawyers and experts and whatnot - again, I don't believe they're knowingly trying to deceive anyone, or bring down the system or anything like that (at least not on any large organized level, there may be a few kooks - but we have those on our side as well - it happens). I think they're simply wrong. It happens to even the best and the brightest. You come up with data about any given subject, and give it to 3 different "experts" - and you might get 4 different conclusions about what that data shows. Again - headless blunder operating under the illusion of a master plan....

That's just how I see it though. I was always taught to always give people the benefit of the doubt in regards to motives unless you have direct evidence proving otherwise. Question their judgment, question their knowledge, question their conclusions - but always extend an assumption that all parties are operating in good faith (not that a healthy dose of skepticism hurts mind you).

I also think if there was really that concerted of an effort to undermine the constitution or "take over" as it were - that they would have been a lot more successful by now...

Sinixstar
05-06-2009, 12:13 AM
^ That's admirable perhaps in a humanitarian way to extend the benefit of the doubt to Brady and McCarthy. Now I will smash it. After 20 years, they know better. Anyone with an IQ over that of a bean sprout knows better after working a paid living around the subject. They're either incompetent or evil by this point, no possible 3rd direction. No way in hell can they plead ignorance or emotion, which is ignorance itself merely justified by appeal to humanity.

That assumes they care to even listen to what people like you or I have to say. They do not. Just as neither of us much care to listen to what they have to say. We associate with people we agree with - it's human nature. I mean, if the NRA were to turn around tomorrow and say "okay, so we've been lying all this time, and covering up some numbers - here's the truth". Would you turn around and say "oh well, golly gee, I guess i had bad information all along and all my beliefs and opinions are misguided"? I'm guessing probably not....

Just because you disagree does not make them incompetent or evil. Wrong maybe - but incompetent or evil is pretty strong.

7x57
05-06-2009, 12:26 AM
I just don't give mankind credit for being that cunning. I have a hard time believing that there's really a conspiracy to "take over" so to speak. Perhaps you see a monster, but I see a blob fumbling about.


I think you misunderstand me. I didn't say they did it on the orders of the Illuminati or the Gnomes of Zurich or something. If we're talking about those who benefit from the extension of government power and the diminution of personal liberty, it is simply shared selfish interest. You can find plenty of instructive examples of such behavior in the history of, for example, the European aristocracy. They couldn't possibly conspire, being so often at war to nab each other's lands from the smallest knight right up to the kings. But they could react coherently against threats to the aristocratic system itself, not because they had any conspiracy to do so, but because they all recognized the common threat to their shared interests.


As for the lawyers and experts and whatnot - again, I don't believe they're knowingly trying to deceive anyone, or bring down the system or anything like that


Individually, often not. But a surprising number do so intend, and write about it in books and journals the rest of us don't read. It isn't conspiracy either, but something more akin to the politician's share interest: shared ideology. A shared ideology is probably more effective than share interests, because it not only creates a common reason for action but provides an ethical justification. It makes it noble.


I also think if there was really that concerted of an effort to undermine the constitution or "take over" as it were - that they would have been a lot more successful by now...

The Constitution is actually a pretty powerful check, and it has taken a very long time to break the chains to the degree we have. But I'm too tired to pontificate about that. But to a great degree we all now are subject to laws that were originally intended for slaves or ex-slaves, because it was unthinkable for a citizen to be subject to them. So I suspect they have been more successful than you believe, though far less successful than they would like.

You saw a president elected who said that anyone who wishes not to pay more taxes for more social programs is just selfish. The founders thought that it was pretty important to avoid the government taking one person's things and giving them to another. So we've come quite a ways.

7x57

yellowfin
05-06-2009, 12:28 AM
That assumes they care to even listen to what people like you or I have to say. They do not. Just as neither of us much care to listen to what they have to say. We associate with people we agree with - it's human nature. I mean, if the NRA were to turn around tomorrow and say "okay, so we've been lying all this time, and covering up some numbers - here's the truth". Would you turn around and say "oh well, golly gee, I guess i had bad information all along and all my beliefs and opinions are misguided"? I'm guessing probably not....

Just because you disagree does not make them incompetent or evil. Wrong maybe - but incompetent or evil is pretty strong. It's a strong subject.

Agreement or disagreement is relevent on matters that are entirely characterized by opinion and usually not withstanding a verifiable conclusion. Red shoelaces are ugly or not--that's subject to opinion. You can agree or disagree about that and it's not going to make you more or less right or wrong necessarily in your conclusion reached. A bridge is going to collapse if xxxxx weight is put on it--that's a fact. Perhaps not immediately demonstrable at the time, so you can guess one way or the other, but you're either going to be right or wrong. You can listen to what one person says, ten people say, or none at all--regardless if 10 million people say so for 100 years, you're still either right or wrong and opinions may exist but ultimately don't amount to squat. You can have an opinion of a fact but that doesn't change the fact.

It doesn't matter whether it is my opinion or not. They are either failed in their understanding of the matter or its consequences by fault of their efforts, be it by rational fault or not, or evil in that their distortion of truth and desire for it to be acted upon knowing of that fault and its consequences. That just is what it is. Doesn't matter what that means to me or not.

The matter of gun rights is a matter of facts and concrete truths, and McCarthy et al. fail on that end. Miserably. My opinion on that has no bearing on it--I could agree with them and I'd be wrong and they'd be still wrong even with my endorsement of their conclusions. Doesn't matter if they listen to me or not. If they listen to 100 people like me, 100 people like them, or zero people at all, they're wrong if they say what they say and assert it as truth and actionable fact. The blah blah blah about grey areas, opinion, etc. is utter nonsense: when you're telling millions of people what is a matter of right and wrong and rights of human beings concerning life and death matters, you'd better leave the emotional and utopian theory crap at home. "I feel that..." or "the experts believe..." isn't a direction on the highway, it's off the side of the overpass. It has no place. Nothing Plato, Oprah, or that little voice in their head told them is worth endorsing tyranny, helplessness, perversion of justice, and throwing away the pinnacle of human achievement in self government and liberty that took 10,000 years of trial and error, wars and death, to come about.

To bring forth what they bring, the destructive end that is the product of their labors, is, as explained, either incompetence or evil.

7x57
05-06-2009, 12:34 AM
Just as neither of us much care to listen to what they have to say. We associate with people we agree with - it's human nature.

I'm not going to accept a relativising argument equating myself and Sarah Brady in terms of listening to evidence, simply because I *do* pay attention. It's a professional skill for anyone with a technical education and some, still, who don't. There was a time when I suspected that the legal facts did not support our kind of 2A, and at that time I did not advocate for it to others. Similarly for the actuarial facts about armed self-defense.

7x57

snowboarder
05-06-2009, 1:26 AM
over reaction much?

The laws may suck -but they are the laws. Violate them, and ultimately in my opinion you are no better then the criminals the laws supposedly are meant to protect us from.

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about things. Olofson's actions were exactly the WRONG way. Perhaps the punishment is harsh, but if you can't do the time, don't do the (supposed) crime as they say.

We're all entitled to our own opinions but all I can say is I hope you're never on a jury when a fellow gun enthusiast gets brought up on some bogus charges like Olafson. It is a jurors duty and right to nullify any law that they feel is unjust and that they disagree with. Those prosecutors and judges should be thanking their lucky stars that no one who thinks like me was on the jury. I would have nullified their nonsense and said not guilty until the cows came home. Just because a law or statute is on the books does not make it right or moral.

"The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from abuses of power by government."

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States

SB

cousinkix1953
05-06-2009, 7:46 AM
The defense has explained that the rifle involved, the AR-15, is made with some of the same parts as the automatic M-16, and the problem was caused by "a malfunction, known as 'followdown' created by the failure of the disconnector to retain the hammer in a cocked position after the discharge of each round."
Olympic Arms should have been prosecuted and their AR-15s recalled! Do they really have any business using surplus M16 parts in those semi-automatic weapons, if they can go full-auto?

It should be noted that the BATFE did a better job with the Numrich Auto-Ordnance M-27 Thompsons in the early 70s. There are no model 1928 submachinegun parts in those .45 caliber carbines. They cannot go full-auto by themselves either...