search
top

Response from David Olofson

It’s in the comments, but I thought it deserved to be elevated to a post.

I’ve been pretty busy lately so I have not been doing much in the way of posting corrections, but it was whispered that it was important to keep the facts straight here. I personally was hoping with all the information I put out there it would help keep the mythology to a minimum. I see in this case you have fallen for some of the hearsay out there.

  • “When served with a federal search warrant, the smart thing to do is shut up and get a good lawyer. Posting about your case for the world to see is not a wise idea when the federales come knocking down your door. “

That is the prevailing wisdom of attorneys. I take a differing viewpoint in situation like I find myself in. That is when you are innocent of any crime people will not know of the injustice unless you put information out there. If I had not keep people up to date on a day by day basis you would not know of this now. What good does it do Americans if they don’t know what their government is doing?

  • “It’s rarely a winning strategy to represent yourself, and using a disbarred lawyer to help you doesn’t sound like one either. This is probably a big reason why NRA didn’t get involved. Most competent attorneys who practice gun law are able to get that kind of help, but NRA has to be asked. “

You will not find anywhere that in THIS case I represented myself. Nor did I ever hire or use a disbarred attorney. What did transpire is my first attorney got removed from federal practice (State practice was allowed to my understanding) over what the first judge in this case (Stadmuller (Ph)) called gross incompetence in missing filing dates and the like. As for the NRA they have been invited in and according to my current attorneys have accepted. They are not alone in this as other organizations are helping out as well, to include the second amendment sisters, the GOA, LEAA, and JPFO.

  • “Ignoring advice of real lawyers who say a legal argument that challenges jurisdiction of the federal argument to charge you won’t do anything except piss off the judge strikes me as a bad idea as well. “

The jurisdictional challenges of interstate commerce were not issued in this case at any point.

  • “The kid he lent the AR to made a sworn statement that Olofson had told him not to move the selector into the unmarked burst mode setting because it was missing “some type of thing.” That type of thing would likely be a drop in auto sear. “

While that could be inferred it is untrue. Check the affidavits I posted, they tell a much more detailed story. Also I don’t believe this weapon would take a DIAS, but having never tried it can’t say for sure; maybe Len Savage got a good enough look at it to make that determination.

  • “Why would you lend an AR that has been partially converted to someone, when you can probably bet they are going to actually try pushing the selector past fire?“

You wouldn’t. I didn’t either.

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

If you review trial transcripts you will find they were made that way. For ease of reference I’ll post some of the transcripts here.
Testimony of ATF Agent Max Kingery:
Q. In your training and experience as an expert on AR-15 weapons, you’re aware, of course, that many AR-15 weapons, especially those manufactured in the ’80s, were manufactured with some M-16 internal parts?
A. I’m aware that some were, yes.
Q. Did you ever contact SGW/Olympic Arms about this particular rifle?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Are you aware that SGW has recalled this particular rifle?
A. No, sir.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FAHL:
Q. Now, going to Mr. Haanstad’s questions about firing three rounds and jamming. Why would somebody design a gun to fire three rounds and then jam, have to eject the bolt, start all over, fire three rounds, jam, and do that?
A. They would not do so, sir.
Questioning of Len Savage:
Q. And which fire control components would be used generally when manufacturing this type of rifle?
A. When that particular firearm was manufactured in the serial number range?
Q. Yes.
A. They would have used an M-16 trigger, disconnector, hammer. Sometimes a selector, sometimes not.
Q. And when you did your visual inspection what did that reveal?
A.That it was standard for the firearm that was built in that era. It also revealed that it had an AR-15 bolt carrier, not an M-16 bolt carrier.

  • “Implying that the ATF broke into your house and planted evidence is not going to work with a jury unless you have other evidence to back this up. Admitting you disposed of evidence doesn’t seem like a good idea either, especially when the evidence in question was the one part in question that would make the AR a fully working machine gun. “

I myself did not say they did. But I find there are some interesting coincidences.

“I don’t blame NRA for not getting involved in this case, because a) they were never asked, and b) the case is a bloody mess, with a poor defendant and a poor circumstances. “

I believe A was already addressed, as for b I couldn’t agree more.

“We have to choose our battles carefully, and this isn’t a case I’d want to use to challenge ATF.” I for one plan on pursuing this to the ends of the earth, and not just for my own benefit. If you continue to let evil go on its merry way what reason do you ever give it to change? Your personal opinion of me aside; do you really think we can afford to let a ruling that makes all guns MG’s in the eyes of the law stand?

Hope this clears up your misconceptions of the case. Please read the postings on arfcom for details and follow my posts to avoid the hearsay.

9 Responses to “Response from David Olofson”

  1. Turk Turon says:

    Here’s a link to an address by a law school prof about the value of not talking to the police:

    http://www.regent.edu/admin/media/schlaw/LawPreview/

    You are 100% right about not talking to the police: NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. Even if you are innocent, didn’t know the victim and had never been to the city where the crime took place, you can still be convicted by your own words. This is especially true in the case of a federal police officer: it is a serious crime to lie to a federal investigator. What if you tell the truth? Doesn’t matter! If they can find just two people who can contradict you, you’re going to jail.

    So don’t talk to ’em. At all.

  2. Roberta X says:

    Dang, I sure do like Teh Intranets! That’s fast feedback, right from the source.

  3. BC says:

    It’s ass-covering. The guy changed his story about ten different times within the span of fifteen pages on the AR forums; this is just the most recent iteration.

    Bottom line is what I said earlier: He was an idiot, and while that’s not usually a crime, this time it was.

  4. Sebastian says:

    BC: I’m willing to cut anyone a break on ass covering when they are looking at 2.5 years in the federal clink.

  5. David Olofson says:

    If your implying my recollection of facts has changed at all BC I’ll call you on your BS. Show any page and post numbers on arfcom where I have ever “changed my story.” You can’t, facts don’t change. As such nether dose my “story.”

    Folks like you need to keep their head out of their posterior long enough to see the truth, although I understand that can be challenging at times with all the preconceived notions out there.

  6. Robert says:

    Guys life is still wrecked….over not so much, or NOTHING.

  7. SDN says:

    What Turk said. This is ESPECIALLY true in the Scooter Libby era: even if you’re innocent differences in your recollection and the always truthful agent combined with 12 GFW’s in the jury box = jail for you.

  8. David Olofson says:

    So true. But I’m still hopeful this cluster gets straightened out. I’m hoping that happens before, not after I have to put up with incarceration.

  9. james says:

    This guy Olofson is going to prison for more than 2-3 years, more like 6-10. This was not a case of the big , bad Federal government coming after a legitimate guy. Mr. Olofson decided to go into the business of illegal modifying AR-15s to allow for full auto fire. He is a criminal and deserves the attention Federal Law enforcement has focused on him. Don’t believe the lies of a criminal that a jury FOUND Guilty.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. FreedomSight » Blog Archive » Olofson Followup - [...] props to Sebastian for re-posting Olofson’s comment to Sebatian’s post on Olofson. (Via David [...]
  2. SayUncle » Olofson responds - [...] Olofson responds to Sebastian’s piece on his case. [...]
top