imported post
I'm for freedom of speech.
I'm also for common sense.
It seems unwise to employ one without the other.
--Pointman
From Jack's previous posts, it seems odd he would attack David, especially in the fashion he did; it's almost like it's not the same poster. Because of this and many other inconsistencies, I've spent a lot of time researching the truth.
The FTE reported David's AR15 contained an M16 trigger, disconnector, hammer, and selector. It turns out Olympic Arms used surplus military M16 parts in many of their production AR15s. Specifically, they used the aforementioned parts and also M16 bolt carriers while David's gun was in production.
What they did not use is what was also not found in David's gun, a M16 sear. The M16 sear is required to fire in full-auto mode, and it requires modifications to the lower receiver housing for the sear pin. A M16 bolt is also required to be used with the sear, and David had an AR15 bolt according to the FTE, and no modifications for an M16 sear.
The BTAFE suggested the bolt may have been filed, but did not describe any tool marks or even further inspect it, so there is no reason to believe it was modified, and due to wear, the appearance of the bolt being filed is understandable. Still, many people use the heavier M16 bolt for better performance and all other surplus M16 parts in combination without the M16 sear, and it is still a semi-automatic weapon. (Note the M16 bolt contains more material, so the M15 bolt cannot be filed into a M16 bolt.)
images: http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/AR15-M16Parts/
The search of David's home seems completely unconstitutional. The firearm in question was already confiscated, and there was no evidence David was manufacturing machine guns. The search warrant did not specify the items that could be confiscated, and his computers and other items were confiscated, which is unrelated to converting an AR15 to fully-automatic. There were no M16 sears, M16 bolts, nor the machining equipment to fit the sear to the lower.
In my opinion, the BATFE purposefully mislead the court, since the "tax information" is not Federal Income Tax Return information, and the evidence should have been admissible. Because of the short two day trial, this was not discovered until after David was found guilty. Still, the judge should have demanded an explanation of how a tax stamp came to be located on BATFE documentation, and demanded the documentation be provided without the stamp. Further, the BATFE tried to discredit the defense's experts based on hearsay and without proof (which was fortunately dismissed by the judge). Even further still, Kiernicki, the main prosecution witness, was paid to testify. Reportedly he had four different testimonies, so the prosecutor had to keep asking the questions until he got the one he wanted. Apparently the jury asked for transcripts, but was only allowed to hear the part of the audio record. No evidence was ever presented to substantiate the original claim the gun was modified to fire three round bursts.
The BTAFE video showed improper test procedure regarding how the gun was fired. There is a good chance that under proper testing conditions, the gun would not have sufficient hammer follow through (where the hammer follows the bolt) to strike the firing pin hard enough to detonate a soft primer. The disconnector may have stopped the hammer follow through in the first place, but that part is unknown. The part that is known is there was a clearly a malfunction that took a good amount of effort to induce. Regardless, the AR15 was not designed for soft-primered ammunition.
No allowance was made for an independent 3rd party to investigate the gun, nor the BATFE documents. The gun was not disassembled on video so the internals could be shown, and the internals could not be shown to the court. In my opinion, the gun should have been thrown out completely, and just witness testimony allowed, although that point will probably be raised on appeal.
Government's Proposed Jury Instructions: To sustain the charge of transferring a machine gun, the government must prove the following propositions: First, the defendant knowingly transferred a machine gun; and Second, that the defendant knew, or was aware of, the essential characteristics of the firearm which made it a machine gun.
I have no idea how David was convicted, assuming these were the final instructions, but juries are odd beasts which do odd things all the time. It seems the BATFE wouldn't have even had a case had David not mentioned their findings of his gun to be a standard AR15 on AR15.com. Some helpful person mentioned all AR15s will go auto based on the floating firing pin design when used with soft-primer ammunition, which is ammunition they were not designed to use. The BATFE had the FTE retest the gun, and got it to malfunction a few times, but not consistently. The gun would obviously not fire as an automatic with any certainty or repeatability.
It's really sad if freedom ends where government begins. --Pointman
Jack made accusations about OpenCarry being anti law enforcement or anti-government. In the thousands of posts I've read, LEOs have not come under fire more than any one else. In fact, more people were ridiculed for using 9 mm ammunition as a defensive round than LEOs were for other things. Many here (including myself) support LEOs and our government, and have defended both. We may think some things need to be changed, but that doesn't make us anti-US, it makes us part of the US.
I've seen attacks very similar to Jack's elsewhere, and they do not further the truth, our education, nor Open Carry. While Jack (if it is Jack) is entitled to his opinion, he has stated it, without supporting it. Letting him continue his unfounded rants is a disservice to Open Carry, its members, and legal firearms possession as protected by the Second Amendment.
Had David created a full automatic, and I did not see any evidence he did, he would not have been wrong to do so according to the Second Amendment. Just because a law has been made does not mean it is right, DC vs. Heller is a good example of this.
As for the government watching this and other discussions and us needing to fear them, the scare tactics employed in that statement are reprehensible. While researching David's case my computer network has been repeatedly attacked, and attempts appear to have been made to shut it down. Because of the scale of attack I have not yet determined exactly what happened or who is behind it. Still, no BATFE agents came to my door, and I don't expect them to. No computer cracker groups or anti-gun nuts have shown up either, and they could just as easily be the source of the attacks.
A discussion of David's case should not warrant government investigation, and even then they'd first have to find something worth prosecuting. Arguably, the government did prosecute David even though it seems he did nothing wrong, and I think in the end his verdict will be overturned. It seems illogical to prosecute us for talking about the case, as most people here are attempting to understand and comply with the law. There are other sites that cater specifically to militia-types, and those would be a more obvious target.
David does appear to be the victim of wrongful prosecution. When researching, I sided against him, trying to find any and all evidence of his guilt. Since the BATFE is not presenting information and criminals usually squeal the loudest, it seemed only fair. The condemning evidence (such as the M16 parts) turned out to be standard fare, and most surprisingly the evidence in whole and in part did not only imply David did not do anything wrong, but implied he was innocent. The more I looked into this, the more evidence I found showing David should not have been charged. Other involved persons started popping up that corroborated David's story. In the end, he seems to be more respectable than I'd initially thought.
As a disclaimer, all of this is only my opinion, which may be incorrect. I believe the information I've presented to be accurate, but without being there and having physical evidence in front of me, I can't claim it is. Since even the defense lawyers can't obtain all the evidence, I believe research and common sense is the best anyone has.
David's sentencing is scheduled for May 15.
After writing this and reviewing the facts, I found Lou Dobbs covered the topic, and also believes David has been wrongfully prosecuted. Congress is also considering H.R. 1791, which would create standards for firearm testing, although it is very basic at this point
Lou Dobbs Two-Part Report:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2008/03/13/ldt.tucker.govt.guns.cnn
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/14/tucker.government.guns.part.2.cnn
