Comments on: Analysis of Olofson Appeal Ruling http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/05/05/analysis-of-olofson-case/ The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ... Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:10:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/05/05/analysis-of-olofson-case/#comment-42538 Sebastian Thu, 07 May 2009 14:22:09 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10184#comment-42538 We do not have a justice system, but a legal system. While I do think Olofson was guilty of what they charged him with, there's no justice in that law, and no public interest that's served by keeping him in a federal prison. We do not have a justice system, but a legal system. While I do think Olofson was guilty of what they charged him with, there’s no justice in that law, and no public interest that’s served by keeping him in a federal prison.

]]> By: Robert http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/05/05/analysis-of-olofson-case/#comment-42537 Robert Thu, 07 May 2009 14:09:44 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10184#comment-42537 A Federal court tramples and perverts human rights, ruins the life of a citizen.....but leaves scraps on the table for the next peasant. A Federal court tramples and perverts human rights, ruins the life of a citizen…..but leaves scraps on the table for the next peasant.

]]> By: Sebastian http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/05/05/analysis-of-olofson-case/#comment-42510 Sebastian Wed, 06 May 2009 19:36:44 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10184#comment-42510 One things that's interesting about the definition of "automatically" that Olofon's attorneys were proffering, is if the courts had bitten, then three round burst firearms would have been outside of that definition, and would not be subject to NFA regulation. One things that’s interesting about the definition of “automatically” that Olofon’s attorneys were proffering, is if the courts had bitten, then three round burst firearms would have been outside of that definition, and would not be subject to NFA regulation.

]]> By: Ride Fast http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/05/05/analysis-of-olofson-case/#comment-42499 Ride Fast Wed, 06 May 2009 16:54:18 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10184#comment-42499 [...] Analysis of the Olofson conviction [...] Nice analysis. Thanks! [...] Analysis of the Olofson conviction [...]

Nice analysis. Thanks!

]]> By: SayUncle » Olofson update http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/05/05/analysis-of-olofson-case/#comment-42480 SayUncle » Olofson update Wed, 06 May 2009 12:24:47 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10184#comment-42480 [...] Sebastian has an analysis of the Olofson case. [...] [...] Sebastian has an analysis of the Olofson case. [...]

]]> By: GunPundit » Blog Archive » Olofson Update http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/05/05/analysis-of-olofson-case/#comment-42475 GunPundit » Blog Archive » Olofson Update Wed, 06 May 2009 01:59:43 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10184#comment-42475 [...] Sebastian on the denial of an appeal in the Olofson case: What it boils down to is that if you have a firearm that fires more than one round per single pull of the trigger, and you know it does this, you need to take it to a gunsmith and get it fixed pronto, because by the strict legal definition, you are in possession of a machine gun. [...] [...] Sebastian on the denial of an appeal in the Olofson case: What it boils down to is that if you have a firearm that fires more than one round per single pull of the trigger, and you know it does this, you need to take it to a gunsmith and get it fixed pronto, because by the strict legal definition, you are in possession of a machine gun. [...]

]]> By: BC http://www.pagunblog.com/2009/05/05/analysis-of-olofson-case/#comment-42471 BC Tue, 05 May 2009 22:50:55 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=10184#comment-42471 Appealing the admission or exclusion of evidence is almost always a "you snooze, you lose" situation -- if you didn't timely and validly object at trial, you won't get relief from an appellate court outside of a very narrow "clear error" exception. Appealing the admission or exclusion of evidence is almost always a “you snooze, you lose” situation — if you didn’t timely and validly object at trial, you won’t get relief from an appellate court outside of a very narrow “clear error” exception.

]]>