“The proper way to promote gun rights is through the courts, and political process, not armed resistance at this point.”

And how’s that working out, exactly? What does Olofson’s case demonstrate? For 70 plus years we have allowed ourselves to be pushed back from the free exercise of our rights, each time whispering our resentment but refusing to DO anything about it.

“There may be a time when that becomes appropriate, this is not that time.”

My point about Olofson is that if this is NOT the time, right now, today, then it ain’t far in the future.

“In many, maybe even even most, regards BATFE is overstepping it’s bounds, and needs to be reigned in, but to think that the threat of whatever arsenal you possess is stopping the government from coming to get you if they wanted to is laughable, at best. Let’s face it, the government has the power to remove any lone person, or even a group any time they want. They have the guns, body armor, tear gas, flash grenades, and worse to come and get you. The preventative power of the second amendment is in the possibility of a mass uprising, not one person shooting it out with the feds.”

Again, how is that “reigning in” to be accomplished, exactly? They paid no price for their deadly activities in the 90s. As the result of the “war on terror” the agency has grown like Topsy, filled with new, eager ignorant and arrogant thugs who have no idea of constitututional restrictions. They are a law unto themselves, cf Olofson. Heck, the Founders would have rejected the entire agency as unconstitutional. I possess no “arsenal” save that of my own mind. I have a couple of pistols, a few rifles and a shotgun. What I have is the determination to live, or die, as God wills, as a free man. As a Christian I am unafraid of what the thugs of the imperial federal regime can do to me, for they cannot harm my inextinguishable soul. That said, I have no illusions about my INDIVIDUAL ability to resist their raid party. But I do understand how a tripwire works. Consider me as voluntary bait, without illusions of what that entails. And despite my unpopularity on this blog, where I am considered with all the fear and loathing of skunk discovered under the front pew at church, I have thousands of friends all across the country.

“Furthermore, in your one man uprising, you will not die a martyr to more than a select group of people that are probably already on your side. While the Branch Davidians and Randy Weaver have those who support them, and are appalled by the actions of the government, neither of those incidents started an uprising, or even any widespread public outcry.”

Now you have arrived at the precise point. As a friend wrote of Waco in an email just this morning: “Don’t get me started on that. I knew from day one what was afoot. Murder in the making. I even predicted within a day of when it would end. I hoped I was paranoid, I wasn’t. Now I am ashamed because I listened to hope, instead……” To which I replied: “Yes, exactly. But NOW we have no excuse. We said then, when we finally knew how wrong we were, ‘No More Wacos.’ So now we must have no illusions. This is why I get so angry with the cheesers who refuse to get excited about Olofson. The devil is on the march again. It is late August 1939. We must have no illusions.” It could well be that when it comes time for me and my friends to kick in like free men that no one will choose to support us. Likely in fact. Witness this board. That does not relieve us of the responsibility to resist tyranny. What we do is between us, our consciences and our God. What you do is between yours.

“If anything you will more likely be used as an example of why we need more gun control. And all those writings that will be released on the world? They will more likely than not be used to paint you as a paranoid nut, looking to shoot it out with the black helicopters.”

And you will be the one making those examples and excuses, rather than be forced into the dangerous ground of being a free citizen. Hide and watch.

“You can call us what you will, but legal activism, through the courts and through the political process, is still the best way to maintain and expand our rights. ”

Again, how’s that working out, exactly? Ask David Olofson, who presumed his right to a fair trial. Let me give you a pertinent example from the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s. The federal government (especially J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI) was happy to ignore the murders of civil rights workers in the south until blacks, like the Deacons for Defense and Justice, began arming and threatening retaliatory violence against the Klan and the local governments they controlled. Only with the credible threat of violence were the authorities motivated to break their century of indifference to how black folks were treated in the south and DO something. If the game is rigged, threaten to overturn the table. And a pistol aimed unerringly at the cardshark helps.

“The day may come when we need to take up arms against a tyrannical government, but the fact that you can ‘tell] them in advance, in public, what MY “rules of engagement” were.’ is proof that this is not the time. So please stop giving the anti-gun nuts more ammo, and trying to bait the government to come after you. This is only hurting our cause.”

Well, if that’s the case, our “causes” are not the same. My cause is that of the constitutional republic of the Founders and a United States of America that my children and grandchildren can live in as free citizens, not frightened serfs. Here’s the thing: with the ATF on the prod, and cantankerous people like me refusing to be pushed, sooner or later somebody’s going to trade shots.

WE, my friends and me, are going to give the cheesers on this board and in the larger country a choice: are you going to make the same excuses you made before in 1993 when you watched government murder on television and did nothing? And if they kill someone like me, someone who’s not a religious cultist (unless you count the Baptists as cultists), someone who doesn’t mess with explosives or automatic weapons, someone who’s a father and a grandfather, a guy who’s on disability for congestive heart failure and can’t attack anybody, a guy whose only real sin in their eyes is to despise them publicly — if they kill me and you do nothing AGAIN, hiding behind excuses AGAIN, well I don’t know how you look yourself in the mirror.

And understand this, in a country that allows the David Olofsons to be victimized without correction, sooner or later people like me are going to force people like you to look in that mirror. And I suppose that’s what really scares y’all. But whether you like it or not, whether you join us or not, we will force you to make the choice because we DO NOT consent to be victimized by some thug simply because he possesses a federal badge that is unconstitutional in the first place. We are free men and women, and will live or die as free men and women. You are free to choose, but you should understand that the choice is not far away. The imperial feds have apparently decided that by their egregious misconduct in the Olofson case.

While I respect everyone’s right to an opinion, in mine you’re off. If I’m guilty of anything its helping people get into the shooting sports and maintain there proficiency with shooting. That would be the extent of it. There logic in everything I do, it just doesn’t register with everyone.

In many, maybe even even most, regards BATFE is overstepping it’s bounds, and needs to be reigned in, but to think that the threat of whatever arsenal you possess is stopping the government from coming to get you if they wanted to is laughable, at best. Let’s face it, the government has the power to remove any lone person, or even a group any time they want. They have the guns, body armor, tear gas, flash grenades, and worse to come and get you. The preventative power of the second amendment is in the possibility of a mass uprising, not one person shooting it out with the feds.

Furthermore, in your one man uprising, you will not die a martyr to more than a select group of people that are probably already on your side. While the Branch Davidians and Randy Weaver have those who support them, and are appalled by the actions of the government, neither of those incidents started an uprising, or even any widespread public outcry. If anything you will more likely be used as an example of why we need more gun control. And all those writings that will be released on the world? They will more likely than not be used to paint you as a paranoid nut, looking to shoot it out with the black helicopters.

You can call us what you will, but legal activism, through the courts and through the political process, is still the best way to maintain and expand our rights. The day may come when we need to take up arms against a tyrannical government, but the fact that you can “[tell] them in advance, in public, what MY “rules of engagement” were.”" is proof that this is not the time. So please stop giving the anti-gun nuts more ammo, and trying to bait the government to come after you. This is only hurting our cause.

I am not encouraging nor defending any depredations of the BATFE. I think what I and most gun owners want out of them is consistency.

I just want them to go away.

This has to be a broad movement, because if it were ever to come to having to violently resist the government, you’d need all your neighbors to join with you. Lone resistance is guaranteed to result in your destruction. You may die believing you’re a free man, but you will die. That’s your choice, and I wouldn’t deny you that. But to suggest that people who have decided that there is still time for a political solution are somehow impure and unworthy is unhelpful, and make the destruction of gun rights more probable. If our government is so out of control and so criminals as you suggest, why aren’t you starting the revolution now? If there’s still time for politics, it seems to be that crapping on the people fighting that fight is pretty disingenuous.

Let me clear up your misconception.

The reason I don’t want to be associated with David Olofson has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence, and everything to do with him being a stupid sonofabitch.

This, incidentally, is the same reason I refuse to be associated with the Mike Vanderboeghs of the world.

Get a grip. They don’t bother you, not because they’re afraid of you, but because they think — correctly — that you’re a ridiculous waste of their time. If they ever are moved to crush you like an insect, this will not elevate you from your obscurity; it will only cement you in it.

Progress in the real world is made by smart defendants using excellent lawyers to pursue and win clean claims. If you’re not part of that solution, you’re part of the problem. Quit being part of the fucking problem, you ignorant and arrogant shitbags.

I believe this showdown between government and free men will happen in my lifetime. Does that mean that I am itching for a fight? No. I would rather it not come to that, but free men can only be pushed so far. Will I be ready? Not as ready as I need to be.

I know, from your writings, that you are a history buff. I don’t think you have to be all that knowledgeable about history to see what is happening to this country. It is the exact same thing that has happened to almost every nation that has ever existed. Our nation has only been around for a short time and look at where we are. We have gone from a nation of free and proud men, to a state of complete government reliance and control. The level of government control is only going to go in one direction, until something snaps. It may be cases like Mr. Olofson’s that will determine if we still have the means to throw off the shackles of that oppressive government.

Mr. Olofson I applaud you. You may not have made all the right choices, but I am happy to see you taking a stand. I am sure that you were offered a pretty good plea deal. Of course that would mean that you would most likely have to give up most of the rights a free man is granted by his creator.

Am I a cheeser? I hope not. I can tell you that “Law of Unintended Consequences” enters my mind and brings a smile to my face nearly every time my family is out shooting. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Sez you: “So you’re suggesting if we threaten to kill them, they will back off? Sorry, I’m not willing to cross that Rubicon at this point in time. I think 99% of pro-gun activists are with me on that one.”

Oh, you are certainly correct about “with me on that one.” Freedom has ever been defended by a tiny yet determined minority. I have never suggested that “we threaten to kill them.” But the code I have always written of, and lived my life by, is that of a free man — I will not be arrested by people who have shown that they operate a criminal enterprise under color of law. If I tell them, as I have, that I have broken no law so I will not be arrested, they may take whatever uncertainty in their own minds as that may be regarding their own safety in accomplishing my demise. I have no need to spell it out. I DO have need to raise the spectre, so that they understand the Law of Unintended Consequences is in effect before they violate it. All of criminal deterrence, private assault or governmental tyranny, is based on the creation of such uncertainty.

If the ATF violates the law as they have repeatedly in the Olofson case, why then have they not done it to everyone at once? Law does not restrain them — No rule or court order. They act with impunity, bureaucratically speaking. What congress will hold a hearing now? Who will cut off their funding? Who will discipline them? But you stay safe, for now, because other rough men are willing to risk doing defensive violence on your behalf, to paraphrase Orwell. Because THEY fear the consequences, the UNINTENDED consequences, of catching one of US on a bad day.

Back in the 90s, my good friend Bob Wright of the 1st Brigade New Mexico Militia was asked by his FBI SAC if he would really go to the aid of some future Waco-like victim in another state. He retorted, “Why would I want to do that? There’s plenty of you federal SOBs around here.” I had similar conversations here in Alabama. This was a perspective the Fibbies had not considered. Did they try to use weak-minded fools to entrap us, to set us up, on Class 3 and DD raps? Yes, more than once. Did they try to get in our faces and intimidate us? Yes, more than once. Did they visit my house, as they did to scare poor old anonymous (and apyly named) “sayUncle”? They didn’t dare. Because I told them in advance, in public, what MY “rules of engagement” were. The uncertainty in their own minds did the rest.

Now they are in a lose-lose situation. They cannot frame me without killing me, and to do so would merely guarantee that EVERYTHING I’ve ever written would get read by a much larger audience. If they do nothing about me pointing out that not only is their a merely a man behind their curtain, but he lacks both clothes and cojones, they look ridiculous and impotent. Read some of what I have written:

What Good Can a Handgun do Against an Army?

“Kill all they send . . ”

The Window War

Untouchable

Absolved

and especially the recent “Resistance.”

I have given them abundant reason to come after me and still they do not. Why? Because I have given them equally abundant cause to fear that they might be busted by the Law of Unintended Consequences. As the Olofson case demonstrates, it is the only law which still obtains in this country. And your worried about them coming to your house? Oooooooh….

If I may, let me suggest a line from the movie Silverado that applies to y’all. The evil Sheriff is standing in the street, waiting for the final showdown. A townsman comes up to him and aska what’s happening. The Sheriff tells him, “Hide and watch.” This is good advice for you cheesers, who won’t even risk being associated with an innocent man. Hide and watch. But don’t try to kid yourselves or anybody else that you are “gun rights activists.” You don’t have the stones for it.

The fact the BATFE Technical Branch can say or do whatever it wants and have legitimacy or enhanced credibility over a defendant (especially a knowledgable one) solely on the basis of who they are is wrong. We have the right to challenge our accusers of wrongdoing on the basis of facts. It seems to me in many cases, the BATFE gets to dictate facts and leave no room for anyone to say otherwise. And in some cases, get the judge to help them.

What I want is for them to simply have a set of published, consistent rules. In this case, documents from the Technical Branch that says what a legal M-16 pattern machine gun looks like with details on its internal configuration versus that of an AR-15 semi-auto. A reasonable person should be able to look at the descriptions and diagrams of each within and make a determination as to whether gun X fits the criteria. If an AR-15 is modified to shoot full-auto, the differences between it at the AR-15 standard should be immediately obvious and a technical expert from either side (prosecution or defense) should be able to explain why. Objective, factual, clearly specified information. And differentiate between mechanical malfunction within the firearm and induced malfunction (e.g. deliberate use of soft primered ammo that is generating a malfunction versus a deliberately engineered one)

What the BATFE should NOT be doing is trying to manufacture evidence. The fact that they modify a gun they are supposed to be testing to determine if it is a machine gun should automatically disqualify the gun as evidence since it has been tampered with. In any other court, the prosecution is not permitted to do that. They have to prove their case on the basis of what is in front of them and no more. They can’t go and remove or modify something to fit whatever theory or outcome they’d like. It seems the BATFE is trying to prove a positive even if it means making it happen.

Such procedures, proper chain-of-evidence, along with a requirement to videotape testing, benefits everyone. What it seems like now is the BATFE can make it up as it goes along and no one can do anything about it. If someone is in the wrong with the details of how they will be prosecuted in the clear (isn’t that what is supposed to happen anyway?) then they are in the wrong. Moving the goalposts to make them fit is not right. It isn’t fair, it isn’t blind and it certainly isn’t justice. I’d also argue it isn’t legal.

We aren’t dealing with squishy, subjective issues here. We’re dealing with whether a mechnical object fits a given set of criteria based on its form and function. These should not be subject to interpretation of “he said, she said”. Because it went “bang!” twice should not be the sole definition of a machine gun because someone says so and then doesn’t allow you to challenge them in creating reasonable doubt. There’s a big difference between a stuck firing pin due to fouling versus deliberately machining channels in an AR-15 lower to accept full-auto components. And nor should the ATF be allowed to do that machining on their part to prove after the fact that you had a machine gun by making it for you.

As a gun owner, I want to be able to look at or order a government document that says, “United States Machine Gun Technical Guidelines and Testing Procedures” and just head down the list. That way, if they do come to my door after a range trip because my AR happened to have doubled, I can challenge their assertions of illegal possession of machine gun on a level playing field.

Isn’t the way it is supposed to be? Or am I supposed to hold my hat in my hand, submit meekly and pray that I never cross paths with them? I just want to obey the law and be left alone. I want reasonableness for honest mistakes and I want punishment for actions that intentional against the law. A worn disconnector should not be the same thing as one filed down. Otherwise, we’re all doomed.

Just my (probably misunderstood) thoughts on the subject.

So you’re suggesting if we threaten to kill them, they will back off? Sorry, I’m not willing to cross that Rubicon at this point in time. I think 99% of pro-gun activists are with me on that one.

I poke them with a stick all the time. In fact, I have a website for that. What I don’t do is get real fast and loose with the rules.

And they’ve been to my house, sparky. They paid you a visit over shit you said on the internet?

What stick did he poke the ATF with? That he had political opinions prior to the incident? Seems to me Olofson answered the other factual “concerns” of you cheesers. Are you saying that it’s his fault he held politically incorrect opinions AND firearms so you don’t blame the gun gestapo for singling him out? And in any case, your comment merely reflects your cowardice. I’VE been poking the ATF on issues big and small for 15 years and I’m still here, spitting in their bureaucratic eye. Only someone with a faint heart and fainter principles worries about their opponent’s “bigger stick.” Worry rather about right and wrong, constitutional and unconstitutional, good and evil. For pity’s sake, they’re BUREAUCRATS fer cryin’ out loud. They are ignorant, arrogant and armed but they want to live to draw a pension. Its guys like you, with your “lions, and tigers and bears, oh my” attitude who encourage their depredations. — Mike Vanderboegh

something that if you ever handled semiauto rifles at all for any length of time you know happens frequently

I’ve been handling semi-auto rifles and pistols for the last 17 years, and I’ve only seen one gun slamfire – a CZ 52 pistol in 7.62 Tokarev (or whatever you call that funky .30 caliber pistol round).

I’m not saying that my personal anecdotal experience should be taken as the be-all-and-end all, but accidental slamfires on weapons that aren’t modified are pretty rare. In my experience.

I have no problem with people’s doubts. Any defendant should be looked at as having very good reason to be dishonest. But I’m sure you will agree that the ATFs history shows they are willing to do worse, and the one witness against me has little credibility as a 9th grade dropout who was trying to avoid a possession charge, had multiple versions of events, and got paid to boot. That’s why I’m putting up the other affidavits. See what the others involved in this say and draw your own conclusion, no one needs me to lead them down any particular path.

I concur. But why is the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED crowd so intent on throwing those who criticize their method under the bus?

I personally hope they are not. We all have our differences, but when our rights are in danger we should concentrate on our similarities. That is how I would prefer to be defined.

Try as my 3rd attorney did I think he was just in a bit over his head. We did try to get him up to speed on gun issues and law but I’m afraid it was too little too lat. Now we have one heck of a mess and it’s going to take a whole team of top notch attorneys who know the issues inside and out to clean it up. I’m defiantly happy to have the propper help. Now we should be able to make some lemonade out of this.

And that may well be the bit of info that relieve my concerns. But as it stands, I hope you understand I have my doubts.

‘Divided we accomplish nothing but failure.’

I concur. But why is the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED crowd so intent on throwing those who criticize their method under the bus?

That’s good. No one here wants to see you in jail. There is no justice that will be served by that. But it’s often said we don’t have a justice system, we have a legal system. I don’t think anyone here is suggesting the ATF doesn’t need a spanking, but step one in that is to make them lose in court, and I’m glad you’ve found some good legal counsel to that end.

You cannot read the evidence presented by Mr. Olofson himself and not conclude that he has been entirely forthright. I’m not excusing ATF by any means. But if you poke the powers that be with a stick, they poke back. And with a bigger stick.

And how did you get the impression that was all i worried about? Olofson’s going to jail. And the ATF railroaded him. And that sucks. But his means of presenting his case could have backfired on everyone.