melkor41 wrote:the gun did not malfunction then.... it was a modified full auto ar-15 using m16 fire control parts which is illegal.
Wrong. The trigger group, selector, etc are not what make an M-16 full auto. The difference is the sear. Before this case, the BATFE had previously given opinions on other ARs that had M-16 versions of the same four parts that were replaced in the weapon tested in this case, and their response was that if it doesn't have the full-auto sear, it is not a machine gun, because the parts in question require the full-auto sear in order to achieve automatic fire.
Thus, the problem is that the ATF does not have any one litmus test of a "machine gun" versus any other case including a malfunction. They have, in the past and present, applied any one of the following definitions of a machine gun:
- A gun which fires more than one round with a single function of the trigger. (BATF definition)
- A gun which, when the trigger is depressed, continues to fire until the trigger is released or the ammunition is depleted (United States v. Fleischli)
- A gun modified with parts from a fully-automatic weapon. (This is the BATF's current position but is refuted by the "SGW letter" in which the BATF stated the opposite position, which the BATF has so far suppressed due to "private tax information". The ATF has often refused to register ARs with M-16 parts other than the auto sear because they are NOT machineguns, and yet the BATF's current position is that this weapon IS a machine gun because it has those parts but not the auto sear)
- A gun which can be modified to fire more than one round with a single function of the trigger. (USC 26-E-53-B-I-5845; the letter of the law makes ANY AR, AK, or other semi-only variant of a select-fire weapon a machinegun because parts are produced and can be bought and installed to make it fully automatic)
The ATF can use these contradictory statements almost at will to declare a weapon a "machinegun" depending on its aims. At no time is there any mention of burst-fire as the result of an unintentional failure of parts or ammunition. Thus, a kaBoom that sets off a round in the magazine has just fired more than one shot with a single pull of the triger; congratulations, you are the proud owner of a (now destroyed) machine gun and the ATF will be calling if the ruling against Olofson stands.
The ATF also has no documented testing criteria, or limit to what it can do to try to make a weapon fire automatically. If it is possible to make your rifle fire in full-auto,
regardless of whether you OR the ATF know it at the time, you are in possession of a machine gun. The ATF originally fired ordinary rifle rounds to test the weapon, and could not reproduce the behavior, and thus said it's just a rifle. The testing director then told them to test again using light-primer ammunition (basically hand-loading pistol primers into rifle cartridges). Olympic Arms SPECIFICALLY STATES that the use of such ammo can cause burst-fire malfunctions and is NOT to be used in the gun, and Olofson was NOT using those rounds. The result? A machine gun. So, whether you know it or not, if there is any combination of fire settings, trigger pull weight, ammunition composition, etc that will make your AR or AK fire more than one round, you could very well be in Olofson's position.
