I look forward to the day when we can do away with the insanity of stepping over invisible lines and a 1/4 inch barrel length being only the difference between upstanding citizens and felons.

It won’t be found in the trial transcript. It’s in the statutory definition of the offense.

18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1): Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2): Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

Emphasis mine. 922(o) violations aren’t strict-liability offenses. The prosecutor has to prove the defendant knowingly violated 922(o) as part of his case-in-chief.

Knowledge, for the purposes of the section, is knowledge that (per 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)) the gun shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger — not that a statute defines such firearms as machine guns, nor that possessing or transferring such a weapon is against the law.

Olofson tried to claim that he didn’t know the gun he gave to Kiernicki fired automatically, and that it was just a malfunctioning AR. The jury thought he was full of crap, likely based in large part on Kiernicki’s testimony of Olofson’s statements to him. See Tr. Transcript 38-39, U.S. v. Olofson, WL 2463280 (E.D. Wis. 2007).

Please show me where that was the case in the trial transcript.

It didn’t matter the government had repeatedly failed to replicate automatic fire until they replaced the ammunition with a softer primer type. It didn’t even matter that the prosecution admitted it was not important to prove the gun would do it again if the test were conducted today.

What mattered was the government’s position that none of the above was relevant because “[T]here’s no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it’s a machine gun.”

No matter what the cause.

Please show me where you have different information.

(“There you go again…”)

Sebastian: do you recall this matter of individual ethics from the other thread?

Could you explain it to BC?

It’s fine. I will always give fair warning before commenters cross the line…

… oh wait ;)

It can be, but that’s not to say I agree that is the case now. Right now we still have a government that is largely operating within the parameters outlined by its constitution. I have many bones of contentions when you get down to the nitty gritty details, but in the matters of utmost importance, things are doing just fine… or at least not worse than they have been in the past.

With regards to intent, yea, current laws and enforcement methods are nowhere near as evil as the Nazis. For that matter, they smell more of incompetency than they do of malice. But on the other hand, the rather arbitrary nature of it all is almost as bad in other ways. At least the Jews knew they were, well, Jews. But does an FFL ever know whether the ATF is going to launch a multi-year crusade to shut them down over some obscure paperwork errors like Reds? Did that guy in Cali last year think he would get raided and have all his guns confiscated over some pics on MySpace? Or that guy in Long Island who had his stuff taken for having the audacity to contact Carolyn McCarthy about an issue? Should someone with, say, an AR pistol, SBR and/or rifle with a foregrip ever expect to get busted if the ATF gets bored and wants to play the “constructive possession” game? And what does it take to provoke a raid like Waco? Or the infamous kitten-stomping raid?

Those are all legitimate grievances, but as bad as they are, if the solution involves war, the cure is going to be far worse than the disease. The only solution that will resolve them long run is convincing enough of your fellow citizens of the problem that they either work, or at least acquiesce to change things. One of the great paradoxes of this nation’s founding was that our founders had an extreme distrust of democratic rule, yet, ultimately, they believed in putting the power in the hands of the people, both in terms of arms, and ultimately in political control. As a nation we have never lived up in practice to the ideals they had for us, but we’ve done pretty well, considering.

I would argue that the sheer randomness has a chilling effect by itself. How many people do you think there are who would like to own guns (or some specific type), but are just intimidated by all the wacky laws?

More than a few, which is why I advocate making the laws far less random, and less prone to being violating by the unknowing. But if the choice is between persuading the people, and making war on them, I choose persuasion.

Anyhow, yea, I agree it’s not time to start shooting yet. And hopefully that time will never come. If it weren’t for the Constitutional question and the fact the antis always try to use it as a stepping stone, I would find the machine gun ban more amusing than anything. The only thing it really accomplishes, aside from raising revenue, is making most of us waste less ammunition.

Pretty much, which is why I don’t get all that worked up about it. It think the founders would probably agree that machine gun ownership should be protected by the second amendment. That’s just based on what I know about them. But I don’t know what they would have thought about surface to air missiles, or anti-tank rockets. I mean, I could make a guess they would have thought it should be protected, or maybe had some trepidation, but there was really nothing like that in their times.

In 1789, there was a certain limit on the destructive power that one man could wield. These days, if you remove the legal and monetary barriers, a single man could wield the power to destroy a city. That’s something the founders could never have even dreamed of. Our civilization has, quite literally, mastered that power behind the stars. We could argue endlessly about what the founders would have thought about the implications of that, but the fact is, that they would be no better, and would perhaps be less informed to answer those questions than we are now.

When you really start thinking about the issues, nothing is as cut an died as many folks would like to believe.

If you would stop intentionally misconstruing fair warning of self-defense, as threats of assassination, your arguement would carry much more weight.

“I will bring coffee and donuts to the cops who bring you in, and vote to convict you if empanelled on the jury that hears your case.”

If you brought coffee and doughnuts to the cops, you would probably not make it past Voir Dire. And a jury is not there to decide in accordance with the letter of the law. A judge could do that. A jury decides the case AND the law in question, then dispenses justice. The people are the sovreign, not the government. Since the 2AM says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, I will conclude that ALL gun laws are unconstitutional. That being the case, self-defense against any government agency violating the Constitution will be vindicated. I would vote to acquit.

Let’s hope the ‘in system’ route works. If not, things will get medieval, and no one on either side wants that.

Again, Pete, by all means continue to flatter yourself by believing this is the case.

You clearly have a limit on what you’re prepared to do, and that’s fine.

Yup. I’m not prepared to assassinate LEOs, or otherwise use lethal force to solve political problems except as a last resort.

Don’t presume to impose that on me or anyone else.

Sorry, but that’s the law. Someday the law may grow so onerous that armed resistance is the only alternative, but we’re nowhere close to that point, and ’til then, anybody who uses violence to vindicate a political grievance is a criminal, not a hero. There is no “live and let live” with criminals. I will bring coffee and donuts to the cops who bring you in, and vote to convict you if empanelled on the jury that hears your case.

You want to own a gun so long as it’s not too dangerous or too unpopular to do so, I got it.

If that’s what you think, no, you don’t “got it”.

With regards to intent, yea, current laws and enforcement methods are nowhere near as evil as the Nazis. For that matter, they smell more of incompetency than they do of malice. But on the other hand, the rather arbitrary nature of it all is almost as bad in other ways. At least the Jews knew they were, well, Jews. But does an FFL ever know whether the ATF is going to launch a multi-year crusade to shut them down over some obscure paperwork errors like Reds? Did that guy in Cali last year think he would get raided and have all his guns confiscated over some pics on MySpace? Or that guy in Long Island who had his stuff taken for having the audacity to contact Carolyn McCarthy about an issue? Should someone with, say, an AR pistol, SBR and/or rifle with a foregrip ever expect to get busted if the ATF gets bored and wants to play the “constructive possession” game? And what does it take to provoke a raid like Waco? Or the infamous kitten-stomping raid?

I would argue that the sheer randomness has a chilling effect by itself. How many people do you think there are who would like to own guns (or some specific type), but are just intimidated by all the wacky laws?

Anyhow, yea, I agree it’s not time to start shooting yet. And hopefully that time will never come. If it weren’t for the Constitutional question and the fact the antis always try to use it as a stepping stone, I would find the machine gun ban more amusing than anything. The only thing it really accomplishes, aside from raising revenue, is making most of us waste less ammunition.

True enough. I would point out that the title of the bill contains the date 2007, and we’re more than halfway through 2008. If you think that it will get through committee, make it through both Chambers and get signed before President Bush leaves office, you’re more hopeful than I am. And considering President Bush’s frankly schizophrenic attitude towards guns, even assuming that he would sign such a thing might be stretching it.

Wrong again, BC. You’ve chosen to not understand what I’ve written. That’s a moral deficiency, not an intellectual one. You aren’t here for conversation, you’re here to castigate and belittle anyone who doesn’t agree with your viewpoint. You noticed that I didn’t try to convince you otherwise? You clearly have a limit on what you’re prepared to do, and that’s fine. Don’t presume to impose that on me or anyone else. You want to own a gun so long as it’s not too dangerous or too unpopular to do so, I got it.

You speak of legislative and legal actions. That’s fine, so far as it goes, and probably enough for now. However, there are many folks out there who are still beating the Militia drum despite that being specifically rejected by the Supremes. They’re not giving up, and it’s long past time to remind them that the attainment of their goal has consequences. Moreover, imagine some Columbine-like mass shooting with Obama, Pelosi and Reid running the store. All your petitions and whatnot, and undoubtably Heller too, will be swept under the carpet as though they never existed. You doubt that? Then explain how Miller was so regularly mis-quoted and -cited for 69 years. It’s not as though Justice Scalia didn’t give them hints on how to do that in his written Heller decision.

When you truly get that gun ownership is an enumerated Right, that it’s not some sort of reserved privilege, you and I can talk, not before. As it is, all you left out is that I’m overcompensating for a tiny wee-wee.

I see what you’re saying, and you’re right. Not all laws, even those passed through the democratic process, are just laws. The question of when you stop trying to affect change at the ballot box, and pick up a rifle is a serious one, and I’m not opposed to the notion that Democratic governments can trample rights, especially rights of minorities.

As such, from a sterile, legalistic and procedural aspect devoid of (or perhaps even including) moral context, is there really that much difference between the Olofson case and, say, Alfred Flatow? Both were arrested for possessing contraband in violation of laws passed by duly elected officials, were they not?

I would posit the difference in that case was intent, and who the targets were. If the ATF were going around and rounding up guns en-mass from certain undesirables, I would argue that it’s drastic measures time. When our Congress passes a law stating that “no Jew/Arab/Black/People with unpopular political views may possess firearms.” then I’m willing to talk about resisting that, violently if need be. That’s a much more serious situation than the government enforcing an, albeit misguided, generally applicable law.

You could argue that the machine gun laws are wrong, and I would agree with you, but they are not so great a wrong that opposing them is so urgently necessary we can’t use the political process. For the purpose the second amendment protects, machine guns are not strictly necessary. If you don’t have one on the first day of the revolt, you’ll have one on the second day. That’s not to say I think the ban is constitutional, but it’s not so great an infringement to warrant revolution.

I just don’t think that’s really the case. I would also note that Olofson probably would have done a lot better in his case had he sought, from the very beginning, competent legal counsel. But given that I doubt you’re lending out AR-15s with M16 trigger groups in them, I don’t think you’re in any serious risk.