Ammo For Sale

« « Evil comes to the city (my the city) | Home | The Chicken Little World Liberals Have Brought Us » »

More on the Olofson Case

You’ll recall the story of David Olofson (past coverage here). He was supposedly sent to jail for a malfunctioning firearm. Reviewing the report from an ATF field agent don’t seem to jibe with some of Olofson’s claims. The agent claims that the firearm selector switch moved through all three positions (including the naughty switch) and that the bolt had been filed (see note 13) . Note 17 says nothing about soft-primered ammo. One of the allegations made by Olofson was that the firearms tests were not videotaped. Based on these affidavits, I can see how a jury could convict. And if they hadn’t got him for that, they could have got him for dealing firearms without a license.

Also, Lagniappe is not such a fan of GOA.

There are no winners.

Via Sebastian.

Update: This document doesn’t jive with the ATF report mentioned above.

Update 2: In comments, Sailorcurt notes some pretty major discrepancies between what ATF says and what happened:

Supposedly, Olafson had modified his AR-15 to fire three round bursts, however, the affidavit later states that when the BATFE tested it, it fired full 20 round mags in full auto. Modified or not, something wasnít working right in that rifle.

According to the affidavit, Olafson was selling guns on E-bayÖE-Bay doesnít allow gun sales.

10 Responses to “More on the Olofson Case”

  1. Kevin Baker Says:

    It does say something that I’d trust the word of anyone other than the sworn word of a BATFE agent first though, doesn’t it?

  2. Sailorcurt Says:

    As I posted in comments to the post you linked, there are some problems with the affidavit that he touts as undeniable evidence of Olafson’s guilt.

    Supposedly, Olafson had modified his AR-15 to fire three round bursts, however, the affidavit later states that when the BATFE tested it, it fired full 20 round mags in full auto. Modified or not, something wasn’t working right in that rifle.

    According to the affidavit, Olafson was selling guns on E-bay…E-Bay doesn’t allow gun sales. Olafson says he wasn’t selling guns at all, but was helping others order the parts and build them with his assistance. This is supported by paragraph 8 of the affidavit: “After the firearm arrives, Olafson would contact Kiernicki and then the two of them would assemble it.”

    The only evidence of Olafson “engaging in the business” of selling guns is the unlikely accusation of him selling them on E-bay. Um…doesn’t E-bay keep records? Seems like a pretty easy thing to check out if true. If not, why was that even mentioned on the affidavit unless specifically designed to present a false impression?

    They seized several firearms from Olafson’s place when they executed the search warrant but didn’t find any other modified to full auto. So, we are expected to believe that Olafson only modified ONE and then chose that ONE, that could potentially land him in federal prison, to loan to others? Maybe Olafson really is that stupid, but I’m a bit incredulous.

    If he was illegally using someone elses FFL number, why wasn’t he charged with that? If they couldn’t prove it, why was it on the affidavit? More innuendo to present the impression of deliberate criminal activity?

    Is there any doubt that Kiernicki, facing federal charges and prison time himself, had some motivation to…um…embellish his story somewhat? Is it so implausible that the BATFE agent may have…pursuaded…Kiernicki to…amend…his story somewhat? Are you SURE he was just going to help you build a rifle? Are you POSITIVE that he wasn’t “engaged in the business” and selling you a rifle as a part of that business?

    Are you SURE you Olafson didn’t mention to you that the rifle could fire three round bursts? ’cause if we can’t “prove” that he knew it when he gave the rifle to you, someone might think that it was YOU that modified the rifle to make it select fire. That would be unfortunate for you now wouldn’t it???

    The bottom line is that I honestly don’t know whether Olafson is guilty or not, but this case stinks to high heaven of heavy handedness and questionable practices by BATFE agents who desperately wanted a conviction for a rare “machine gun” charge.

    Added to the demonstrated fact that the BATFE has, in the past, modified guns under test in order to convict someone of possessing illegal machine guns, and I have some serious doubts about this case.

  3. SayUncle Says:

    you left a comment there? it’s not showing up.

  4. Sailorcurt Says:

    I noticed. It said moderation was on…maybe it just hasn’t cleared yet. I’ll give it some time and then try again.

  5. Oldsmoblogger Says:

    I posted a reply at Lagniappe on Sunday that hasn’t cleared yet.

  6. Justthisguy Says:

    There is ATF lying going on in this club? I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

  7. Sailorcurt Says:

    I posted a reply at Lagniappe on Sunday that hasnít cleared yet.

    Seems to be a trend. I finally got a comment to go but a much watered down version from the first.

    He replied

    My response to his reply never showed up.

    Curious.

    I’d hate to suspect that someone ostensibly on our side of the issues uses the same tactics to avoid “reasoned debate” as some others do…

  8. Saladman Says:

    Cuz, you know, when would an ATF agent ever shade the truth to get a conviction?

    Is this really where you’re coming from?

  9. Sailorcurt Says:

    It’s confirmed. We have a case of Reasoned Discourse(tm):

    Sorry Sailorcurt, the moderation’s not defective–it’s actually pretty effective and consistent and while I give posters plenty of latitude as far as discussing the actual topic goes, I also choose not to approve posts which learn towards discussing me instead of the topic at hand.

    Convenient that readers don’t get the opportunity to assess what I wrote for themselves to decide if it was personal or on point…even more convenient that, by not posting it, he doesn’t have to address the points that he finds inconvenient.

    I thought only the other side did these things.

    Sigh.

  10. bob r Says:

    Lagniappe:

    …the moderationís not defectiveĖitís actually pretty effective and consistent and while I give posters plenty of latitude as far as discussing the actual topic goes, I also choose not to approve posts which learn towards discussing me instead of the topic at hand.

    That doesn’t seems to stop him from discussing the commenters and attributing to them things they didn’t actually say or even imply.

    I tend to concur with the “Reasoned Discourse(tm)” tag.