Mis-fires and Felonies

If you haven't seen these two CNN reports on the federal conviction of David Olofson for illegally transporting a machine gun, take a look. It seems to be a case of the federal government's inconsistency in enforcing legal statutes. As a member of ar15.com, I have seen this archive of the documents that explain the case. There are many pages, but I will try to stick to the basics. In general terms, Olofson was arrested for "transporting a machine gun". It seems that he loaned a semi-automatic (legal) rifle to a friend, who took it to the shooting range. At some point in the course of the day, the friend pulled the trigger and more than 1 bullet was fired. The gun then promptly jammed, (seemingly) revealing a mechanical failure. However, when the ATF was notified of the incident, they determined that the rifle was, in fact, a machine gun. Olofson was arrested, and just received 30 months in prison for his offense. First of all, finding a transcript of the trial is hard. I finally found it: page 1, page 2, page 3. Note that the guy had to pay over $1000 to get a copy. There is a lot of info, but the bottom line appears to be this - the applicable statue says that if a gun fires more than 1 round with 1 pull of the trigger, it's a machine gun. Period. It doesn't matter if it's a malfunction, a broken part, or if little green men come down from Mars to throw bullets down the barrel. It's a machine gun, no exceptions. Here is the defendant describing the ruling in his own words at ar15.com: It is not necessary to allege or prove the weapon was modified in any way. No one has alleged or proven that it was, nor has the jury found that it was modified. All that the government needs to prove is that the gun meets the strict statutory interpretation. That it may be a factory gun in a configuration approved by the ATF makes no difference as far as the statue is concerned... Not void for vagueness because the statue it clear, any gun that goes bang more than once, no other requirements for standardized testing of any sort, or modification to the gun needed. One need not know that I am a gun owner to know that I consider this garbage. The dude is getting a raw deal. However, I find bitterly ironic that this rigid interpretation of the statute (call it "originalism" if you like) is just the type of legal reading that Republicans prefer. I will bet that the defendant voted Republican in 2000 and 2004 - he probably supports originalist Constitutional interpretation too. Poor bastard. Read this post about Justice Scalia and how his strict originalist reading of the Constitution yields similar non-sensical results: If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized by a law enforcement person, if you listen to the expression 'cruel and unusual punishment,' doesn't that apply?" Stahl asks. "No, No," Scalia replies. "Cruel and unusual punishment?" Stahl asks. "To the contrary," Scalia says. "Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so." ... And when he's hurting you in order to get information from you…you don’t say he's punishing you. What’s he punishing you for? He's trying to extract…," Scalia says. This is the type of judicial meddling that torture apologists have used to justify their actions on torture. One of the major reasons so many legal types are upset by this it that it opens the door for even more abuses through a manipulation of legal wording - such as in the gun case, where some people are referencing Staples v United States - particularly the clarification of § 5845 (b) provided in the notes of the majority opinion, written by Justice Thomas: 1 As used here, the terms "automatic" and "fully automatic" refer to a weapon that fires repeatedly with a single pull of the trigger. That is, once its trigger is depressed, the weapon will automatically continue to fire until its trigger is released or the ammunition is exhausted. Such weapons are "machineguns" within the meaning of the Act. This might be a good argument, but we know the earth-shattering importance of comma placement, and their ability to completely change the meaning of otherwise clear-sounding language (at least for some people). Also, note that the only major media outlet that seems to be upset by this is CNN - the "liberal" media supporting gun owners? The guys at ar15.com are praising Lou Dobbs up and down, and most of them are rabid Republicans. What could this possibly be about? Gee, I wonder... What is the lesson in all of this? We have Republicans arguing for liberal interpretations of firearm statutes (while they fight against liberal interpretations of torture statutes), the "liberal" media fighting for firearm owners, and a Republican executive branch (who oversees the ATF and the federal prosecutors) doing nothing - they pretend to support gun ownership, but they sure aren't showing it. I think that it all stems from people's desire to use "equality under the law" to force their opinions on others. For those who would do this, I will once again refer them to the famous quote by Rev. Martin Niemoller: First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me. It's high time we all speak up.