Olofson update
Sebastian has an analysis of the Olofson case.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 6th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
What’s really interesting about the definition proffered by Olofson’s attorneys in this appeal, namely the definition of “automatically,” is if the court had accepted it, it would have made three round burst legal, and not subject to NFA regulations. The argument essentially was that automatically meant that it had to fire until the trigger was released or the ammunition was exhausted. If it stopped firing as a result of something other than those two things, then it wasn’t a machine gun, since it did not fire automatically. This was the language the Supreme Court used in Staples, but it was dicta.
It seems that argument was a hell of a hail mary, legally, but if there’s any chance the court might bite, you give it a try. Would have been interested had the court bitten.