Worn sears and slam fires a federal crime?

[Dirty_Pete]

Originally Posted by sjl127

You're missing the point.

The jerkwad (ATF agent) testified that: Read it;

...assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Hannstad, who handled the prosecution.

"Haanstad claimed the law does not exempt a malfunction. He claims that it states 'any weapon that shoots more than once without manual reloading, per function of the trigger is a machinegun.' To clarify when I was on the stand, I asked him, 'Are you saying if I take my Great Granddaddy's double barrel out and I pull one trigger and both barrels go off, it's a machinegun?' He went back to … 'any weapon that shoots…'" Savage said.

###

This is bullshit in its finest.

I agree that if this guy was an ATF agent, this would be bullshit. But also worth noting in your post is that this guy was an attorney, not an employee for the ATF. Still, I'd like to see the ATF clarify this for certain. Also, it's important to note that an attorney will quote letter-of-the-law to protect themselves from a common sense rebuttal, like Len's comment about his granddaddy's double-barrel.

Pete

[Sebastian]

I actually read through the whole thread. A few things:

1. This guy insisted on representing himself, then went through several public defense attorneys. If you ever find yourself in this kind of trouble, obtain competent legal council. If you're working with a public defender, work with them. Don't expect them to pursue hare brained legal actions that they may not even be able to do legally. In short, don't be a bozo with your attorneys, and let them do their jobs. I think this guy's case was winnable with competent legal council.
   
2. ATF's initiial testing indicated the rifle had a number of M16 trigger parts in it, along with an M16 selector. The rifle experienced hammer follow when put into what would be full or burst fire on an M16. ATF's initial firearms technician sent the rifle back stating it was not a machine gun and would not fire under full auto. The agent overseeing the case insisted the rifle be retested with soft primers, which caused it to fire short bursts automatically.
   
3. All of the criticisms of ATF's testing procedures are completely valid. All of the criticisms of ATF for refusing to let the defense have access to critical evidence are also valid, which highlights the importance of having qualified council to defend you in a case like this.

AR-15s enthusiasts are wise to ensure that they don't use M16 parts in their AR-15. ATF has long held that M16 parts in an AR-15 are a no no, even if the parts aren't sufficient to produce full auto fire.

[lildobe]

And this is a good example of the original news story not giving all the facts. If in fact this weapon was capable of firing in 3-round burst mode, then the conviction was indeed sound. If not, and it WAS due to wear, then it should be overturned.

My thanks to everyone who knew more about the story then I did posting the additional info.

[Kenshin]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

AR-15s enthusiasts are wise to ensure that they don't use M16 parts in their AR-15. ATF has long held that M16 parts in an AR-15 are a no no, even if the parts aren't sufficient to produce full auto fire.

This would work if Colt didn't produce their 6920 model with the M16 bolt carrier right out of the factory and its readily available to Civilians. (I am 90% positive that it does have a M16 bolt carrier but just to make sure someone with one wanna check. )

[Vortex]

Originally Posted by Dirty_Pete

Len Savage's comments do not match the witness's affidavit.

Apparently the witness's verbal testimony didn't match the witness's affidavit either, giving at least four different versions of the events, most ending with "I'm not sure" or "I don't remember." Also, the witness was compensated by BATF for his testimony.

Interestingly enough, the defendant was convicted of "illegal transfer", but neither the defendant nor the witness were even charged with "illegal possession." That alone seems very suspicious. How can you illegally transfer something that neither the giver nor the "givee" ever possessed?

Originally Posted by Dirty_Pete

From this part of the affidavit, the guy verifies that he selected the three-round selector switch.

Although there was no evidence introduced at trial that this is how the BATF got the rifle to triple.

Originally Posted by Dirty_Pete

Len also mentions that the gun testers say the AR-15 had M16 trigger parts.

People that know more about this than me, say that at the time it was legal to have some (not all) of the M16 trigger parts on the gun (built pre-1986) and they were made at the factory this way.

Originally Posted by Dirty_Pete

Len mentions . . . . this particular gun was recalled because of it's safety issues. However, it kinda seems superfluous.

Not if the recall was specifically because the worn parts had a "known" tendency to slam fire. Interestingly enough, BATF knows that Olympic had a big fire that destroyed Olympic's records including their copy of the "recall notice", but BATF refuses to produce BATF's copy of the "recall notice" claiming it's not exculpatory. Why not produce it and let the jury decide? Isn't that what discovery is all about?

Originally Posted by Dirty_Pete

The kid clearly says he had it in three-shot burst, and it operated as indicated on the selector. The rest of Len's argument . . . . is irrelevant.

It's interesting to think there's some ATF conspiracy theory, but the basic evidence shown doesn't seem to correlate...

Unless you are dealing with the BATF. Remember, this is the same BATF that said a shoe string was a machine gun and confiscated the original shoe string. Another guy tried again with a new shoe string (completely unrelated to what we are talking about) and we now have an NFA registered shoe string.

Some people are saying that the AR selector switch was able to move to where the three round position should be on an M16, but this specific lower was unmarked in this position. Other people say that many AR's routinely use three selector switches, but that doesn't make the third position a machine gun. From the testimony at trial, BATF can only get the gun to slam fire with soft primer commercial ammo, not regular hard primer military ammo.

It seems that if the three selector switch was as reliable as alleged, it would have saved BATF a whole lot of testing time in trying to get it to triple.

Here's some stuff from another forum, that may or may not be true.

Free Republic Comment #85

Actually [. . .], it would appear that what you’re reading is the affidavit filed to support the issuance of an arrest warrant. Those facts were not proven in court, nor were they even established as solid facts. (hint, the claim listed in the affidavit that the suspect had hundreds of guns and a .50 caliber sniper rifle)

The man did not necessarily falsely use an FFL number for his online transactions. The affidavit for the arrest warrant stated that the defendant’s computer had an FFL license number in a text file or spreadsheet.

You see, those of us who buy guns online from companies located outside of our states of residence must have said firearms transfered through a local FFL in our state. You see, when ordering a rifle from AIM Surplus or a similar site, it generally tends to expedite the process if you can provide them with your FFL’s license number (which they will crosscheck with their own files). They will then ship the rifle to your FFL’s place of business, where he will complete the transfer.

Having said FFL license number in your records does not mean that you are a criminal attempting defraud your way into acquiring some boomsticks. This little tidbit of information was just included in that laundry list of potentially fallacious statements called an affidavit in order to prove that some PC existed.

The trial established that numerous parts of the rifle in question were M-16 parts, but that those parts were factory standard from Olympic Arms. Testimony at the trial established that those parts are legal. (As an aside, we gun owners who have a healthy paranoia of the BATFE folks tend to be quite concerned about having such LEGAL parts in our rifles, as Squantos noted. It’s a good idea not to have any of them there, as it can run afoul of the regulatory agency’s guidelines or be misconstrued out of context as an illegal attempt to convert a weapon.)

Some parts, like the M-16 bolt carrier used by Olympic Arms had been filed down at the factory to REMOVE PARTS DESIGNED TO TRIP AUTO SEARS FOUND ON M-16 RIFLES. That is, filed so that they specifically will NOT allow full auto fire. Not, as was implied (but not stated) in the affidavit for the arrest warrant, meant to convert the gun to fire in full auto.

Testimony from BATFE experts, as well as reports from said experts admitted into the record, proved that the hammer was following the bolt. During the first test of said rifle, no doubling or such mis-charges (to coin a word) were noted. The rifle continued to fire in semi-auto only mode. The testing technician concluded that the weapon was NOT a machine gun.

Subsequently, further tests were ordered whereupon commercial .223 cartridges with exceptionally thin primers were specifically requested. (As an aside, .223 is NOT meant to be used in 5.56mm chambers, read the warning from SAAMI or AR15.com’s Ammo Oracle. Doesn’t mean it’s not done, but it’s still not a good idea)

Upon said subsequent tests with intentionally selected thin primers, it was found that the rifle misfired. That is, with the hammer following the bolt a series of slamfires occurred. Statements were made which paint a picture of the technician testing the rifle taking great pains to hold the gun FAR away from his body and face. This is because the technician knew damned well that the firearm was malfunctioning and was potentially firing out of battery (which can result in case ruptures and extreme damage to both firearm and operator).

So, in summary, the defendant was convicted of one count of transferring an illegal machine gun. He was convicted because, after months of trying, the BATFE got his gun to malfunction on camera.

[. . .] has come in here and posted some wildly inaccurate assumptions based on a couple of lines from a document written to show probable cause to arrest.

For starters, I see that your ‘unregistered guns’ comment appears to derive from the line in the affidavit where the investigating agent states that he ran the serial number of the Oly Arms rifle (the alleged machine gun) through the BATFE’s internal database of legal machine guns that they have record of. That doesn’t mean that the other guns seized in the raid were ‘unregistered’, it simply means that you’re reading your own misconceptions into these documents. The firearms registry the agent mentions is the BATFE’s internal record of what machine guns they’ve issued permits for.

Your comment about filing the bolt comes from this affidavit as well.

Also, you saw that the affidavit mentioned an FFL license number found during a search and you immediately jumped to the conclusion that the defendant must have been using it fraudulently.

I understand that all of these mistakes were honest and perfectly natural to make. A person who is not a firearm’s enthusiast, or doesn’t know much about the design or operation of evil black rifles could easily make the same mistaken assumptions.

I also understand that I can’t sit down and explain all the technical minutia of firearms to even a seasoned gun nut. Even if you have a deep abiding interest in firearms, the technical details will start entering into one ear (or eye in this case) and promptly evacuate from the other.

I know damned well I couldn’t get a jury of Joe Average to follow my explanations either. Such statements as “filed bolt” and “unregistered guns” and “some other man’s FFL license number” would be misconstrued as signs of damning guilt, even though they are nothing of the sort.

I think the biggest legal point he makes is that the documents used to establish probable cause for arrest have essentially nothing to due with the facts established at the trial.

Now if we could only find out what the facts are.

So, the BATF doesn't disclose their testing methodology and how many jury members are going to understand the difference between true fully automatic fire and induced slam fire from worn parts? BATF couldn't reproduce the triple fire until they specifically used soft primer commercial ammo. What possible use could there be for a rifle with a true three round select switch that couldn't consistently fire three rounds of military (hard primer) ammo.

Originally Posted by Dirty_Pete

. . . . we sometimes get in the habit of saying "Oh The Big Bad ATF" . . . .

Agreed, except that the excesses of the BATF over time have made it harder and harder (for me personally) to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by Dirty_Pete

I would encourage anyone else to speak on or against this, I merely want to be better educated on this..

Yes, definitely.

Based on everything I've read, I'm absolutely positive that I'm not sure.

Given BATF's checkered history however, I would have to give a tie to the defendant.

[fultonCoShooter]

[Kenshin]

Originally Posted by fultonCoShooter

Wait what you be doing with those rubber bands...........

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by Kenshin

This would work if Colt didn't produce their 6920 model with the M16 bolt carrier right out of the factory and its readily available to Civilians. (I am 90% positive that it does have a M16 bolt carrier but just to make sure someone with one wanna check. )

I haven't verified this, but I have heard from a number of people that old 1970s and 1980s era AR-15 often had M16 parts in them. My understanding is that ATF has gotten more strict about this in recent years, which is probably no comfort to the folks who still have these older model ARs with M16 parts.

[Kenshin]

Originally Posted by Sebastian

I haven't verified this, but I have heard from a number of people that old 1970s and 1980s era AR-15 often had M16 parts in them. My understanding is that ATF has gotten more strict about this in recent years, which is probably no comfort to the folks who still have these older model ARs with M16 parts.

Well it is their law enforcement model but i was thinking that even the new manufactured ones still came with the M16 carrier as well.

[DeltaII5]

Doesn't Colt? still use M16 BCs in their gun? I thought I remember hearing that some company using M16 parts.

If there is no auto sear or tripler then the gun isn't going to fire any type of burst. Even if the gun selector was to go to 3 round there aren't the necessary parts to make it burst. All the ATF needed to do (and they did the first time) was to look at the gun. The tech said it wouldn't fire full auto it was missing the parts.

Instead the agent ignored the tech and tried her best to get a worn gun to fire more than one shot at a time, and they were successful.

In a gun that allows the use of the third selector spot: When you move it to the third spot it is allowing the trigger to be pulled, regardless of whether it activates the auto sear or the three round burst. I have read in the AR thread about him talking about not using it in the third selector spot. That may be because it has issues or pops outta the selection, if there is no auto sear or three round parts, then it moving it to the third spot is simply allowing the trigger to be pulled.