Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« How many commas does the Second Amendment have? | Main | Judge Laurence Silberman on the Second Amendment »

Supreme Court denies review in Olofson case

Posted by David Hardy · 13 October 2009 07:29 PM

The denial was handed down this morning.

11 Comments | Leave a comment

Letalis Maximus, Esq. | October 13, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply

No surprises here.

Morales to the story: don't put M16 parts in your AR; if your AR ever doubles, take it to a gunsmith and get it fixed immediately if not sooner.

James | October 13, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply

And don't be a moron in your criminal case...

Anonymous | October 13, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply


Great news that this dangerous criminal desperato isn't going to be turned loose by liberal judges to...um....well......do whatever he was doing among unsuspecting people and is receiving his just punishment for.....um........doing something importantly bad!

Kman | October 14, 2009 5:01 AM | Reply

Another lesson learned: Don't lend your rifles to people who you don't know very well. In fact, don't lend them at all.

475okh | October 14, 2009 6:03 AM | Reply

Sure is great that we are in the "land of the free" where we even have a Constitution that reinforces God given rights.

SGD | October 14, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply

Good advice, Letalis Maximus, Esq. and Kman.

fwb | October 14, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply

Loose lips sink ships!!!!

Jim K | October 15, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply

If you read the briefs it shows this case entirely different that most in the tin foil hat crowd make it out to be on the various internet forums. Often left out is the fact the man was manufacturing AR15s from parts and selling them as an unlicensed dealer. I have no sympathy for the man, he got caught and now pays the price.

Anonymous | October 15, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply

>Often left out is the fact the man was manufacturing AR15s from parts and selling them as an unlicensed dealer.

Was he charged and convicted of those things?

Note that even if he was, it has no bearing upon whether he actually did something else.

This is the US. Supposedly we don't jail people for "being bad".

Tom | October 15, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply

"This is the US. Supposedly we don't jail people for "being bad"."

Yes we do. In fact the prisons are overflowing because of these types of incarcerations.

straightarrow | October 15, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply

he was jailed on perjured testimony. FTB originally said it was just a semi-automatic rifle. It was then sent back to FTB until the tester reached the "proper" conclusion.

Leave a comment