Staples case and malfunctioning semiautos

Will this help Olofson?

I suspect what might cook Olofson's goose (right or wrong) was that he knowingly had M16 trigger group parts in his AR.

Many semi-autos, whether blowback or gas-operated, can be made to double by the simple expedient of holding them loosely with the trigger finger remaining in the fired (back) position. The firearm recoils rearward upon firing the first shot, allowing the action to cycle and the trigger to reset, then pushes back forward due to the musculature of the shoulder, and if the trigger finger remains immobile, it will double.

If a Court was properly apprised of that possibility, perhaps by being instructed in to shoot that way on a firing range, then the "malfunction" idea is fairly well destroyed.

I think anyone charged for having a semi-automatic weapon that double-fires should use the physical/mechanical defense that most semi-autos can be doubled (the police TEACH double-tap), and NOT rely on parsing the language in the law.

Rivrdog, here "doubles" does not mean a double-tap which is an intentional second pull of the trigger in rapid sequence.

Still, if it was legal, a 2- or 3-round burst for each trigger pull would be a value add, if not preferred. Modern doctrine preaches two rounds to the center of mass, followed by a head shot. The had shot deals with body armor, drugs and dedication/training.

The firearm recoils rearward upon firing the first shot, allowing the action to cycle and the trigger to reset, then pushes back forward due to the musculature of the shoulder, and if the trigger finger remains immobile, it will double.

That would still be one shot fired per each function of the trigger, which means not a machine gun. The definition of a machinegun in the National Firearms Act doesn't make a distinction between an intentional depression of the trigger and an accidental one. As long as it fires no more than one shot per single function of the trigger, it's not a machinegun.

That's one reason the Akins Accelerator was such a mindfuck for ATF to classify. Technically speaking, you rested your finger on something, which allowed the firearm's trigger to come into contact with it repeatedly as it recoiled, and was pushed back with a spring. ATF first said it wasn't a machine gun, then said it was. My opinion is that it isn't. The statute says single function of the trigger, not single function of the finger. I don't think ATF can, willy nilly, redefine what the trigger is on a firearm. Poor drafting can but both ways!

Bleh... that last comment was mine. I forgot to fill in my info.

I thought the "double" in Olofson's case was a "slam fire" the forward momentum of the firing pin striking too soft primers, and the problem was unreplicatable with milballs harder primers.

Didn't the ATF test fail the first time through for that very reason?

tom

Lets look at what Mr. Hardy said in closer detail in the big picture of the Olofson case. Mr. Hardy said the government's logic and case rested on Olofson knew the gun could hammer fire if the selector switch was put in the third position. Yet he didn't get it fixed. OK fair logic and I'll take it to the next step. ATF had a copy of the recall notice Olympic Arms sent out before the building burned down. How many of these notices got out no one knows because all that information went up in smoke. Being said, should ATF demanded that FFL dealers posted it up at their places of business. If nothing more than a safety issue. As we all know a hammer firing is setting off the round before its fully chambered. Should ATF have showed Olfoson a copy of this notice and demanded he send it back ASAP so no one gets hurt shooting it.
Kind of reminds me of Ford Motor Company knowing the Pinto would explode if hit hard in the back of the car. But the legal department said to fix the car would cost more than the lawsuits. Few will argue that this is criminal advice giving to Ford. Would ATF be in the same kind of situation by withholding a recall that few had or knew about because the company who issued the recall lost all their paperwork in a fire that burned the company to the ground. Frankly, I see ATF being a danger to the citizens by withholding information and yet to this date many still own that very same firearm and don't know its dangerous.

I've had a 1911 go cyclic on me. Not a 1911A1, or a clone, but an original 1911.

I put in a magazine loaded with 3 rounds, let the slide go (with my finger off the trigger, obviously), and to my great surprise, that triggered a "3 round burst" as the magazine emptied before I knew what happened. I had the gun pointed downrange, so all the bullets went in a safe direction.

We (it wasn't my gun) immediately disassembled it and examined it, and we determined the nose of the sear had worn from roughly 70 years of use. We ground half the sear into dust on a grinder immediately, and the owner ordered a new sear from Brownells.

We ground that sear down out of what I still think is a rational fear of being sent to prison for owning a "machine gun" when in fact what you have is a malfunctioning semi-automatic.

AvgJoe,

I'm not sure it would be a good idea to start down the road of having firearms regulated as regular consumer products.

I think the safest course when confronted with a malfing Semi that slam-fires is to immediately disassemble, identify the broken part which was the cause of the slam-fire, and abandon that part by putting it into a trash can.

Past interpretations of the NFA have held that a part that can cause a semi to go full auto by itself can be registered as an MG ... so by abandoning that part(s), you are no longer in possession of contraband.

There were many AR-15s legally made with M16 fire control parts before the ATF made manufacturers stop. There is nothing illegal about possessing an M16 with full auto parts so long as there isn't an auto sear.

This is the Staples scenario- ATF gets a guy with an AR that has some M16 parts with no auto sear. This is a legal gun that is NOT a machine gun, as per the ATF. However, this gun is malfunctioning, either due to wear or sloppy construction. Sometimes the gun fires and then the hammer follows the bolt carrier forward and goes click, jamming the gun. The gun doesn't fire when this happens because the hammer isn't supposed to move until the bolt carrier is fully forward. This is what the auto sear is for. The gun owner doesn't realize this, but the gun is attempting to become a machine gun but instead it malfunctions because it lacks the ability to lock the hammer while the bolt carrier is moving.

The ATF gets the gun and substitutes ammo with really soft primers and/or sharpens the firing pin. The end result is that a harmless hammer follow malfunction now becomes a felonious full auto fire malfunction. The ATF has done this a LOT of times. This is why the Staples case exists in the first place.

If someone like Olofson told his friend not to put the selector switch in the full auto position, it may well have been because doing so caused the hammer follow situation above. He was advising his friend how to avoid a malfuction, not how to avoid incriminating full auto fire.

Years ago, I took my father-in-law's Garand to the range, and it was occasionally firing two rounds for a single trigger pull. It confused the hell out of me. It wasn't consistent but it was regular enough. My brother-in-law later had the rifle slicked-up by a gunsmith and the problem has never repeated itself. I still don't know what caused it. But I can't imagine being prosecuted for having a malfunctioning rifle.

Well the ATF has a better imagination than you because they have done it a whole bunch of times.

Many of these laws are so subjective and vague that the ATF uses them as catchalls:
a) to prosecute people they suspect of involvement in some other crime but lack any evidence of (Kwan, a wealthy Class 3 collector who the FBI tried in vain to connect to a federal prosecutor's slaying in WA. They've spent the past 10 years trying to railroad him on bogus NFA charges)
b) to pressure people into becoming informants despite the inconvenience of them not being criminals and thus lacking any incentive to cooperate with you.(Weaver)
c) to get warrants when they need an excuse to break out the SWAT team and showboat for the cameras (the original Waco plan)
d) to boost their conviction statistics by railroading innocent people (the original Staples prosecution- he surprised them by going through years of appeals to the supreme court instead of copping a plea).

Bill Twist, I'm not saying anything close to that. Still wondering how you pulled that rabbit out of a hat.
Nevertheless, BATFE has a job of in part of making sure firearms are safe. If they knowingly know that a firearm can be dangrous to the shooter and have a recall notice from the maker of such firearm. With the added fact that, that firearm manufacture had a fire and all their records were destroyed. At once the "serve and protect" part of BATFE should spring into place. Not keep such information under their hat and spring arrest warrrants on people with such defected firearms. The American people do not pay taxes for such conduct.
This point has nothing to do with the Department of Consumer Safety as much as BATFE doing their real job to serve and protect for which they are paid to do.

AVGJOE, I think your comments are meant for Steve, not for me.