Owner of broken rifle surrenders for 30-month sentence

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans Authoritas wrote:

Are you religious? Christian? Did God not send an angel to break St. Peter out of prison? Did St. Paul not run from the police? Do you think St. Peter and Paul were not breaking the law? Do you not think Christians under Nero were breaking the law? Do you think any of them were doing something wrong by breaking "the law?"

Aaron Staub wrote:

Stop it, really. I knew this argument would get there eventually. If you want to play that game, remember that it was Jesus who said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's"

Aye. He did. And what, precisely, did he say belonged to Caesar? Did he say that anything at all actually belonged to Caesar?


Aaron Staub wrote:

The biblical model of authority in the New Testament is clear in showing that our fundamental obligation is to the authority of God, and then to the earthly governments we live under. Peter, Paul and the Christians under Nero were right disobey, because those civil authorities were trying to prevent the work of the Great Commission.The obligation to spread the gospel superseded the authority of the government. Such is not the case here. Not even close.

You're making exceptions for obeying the law because of your particular belief system? You're going to end up shredding the fabric of society, like HK G3 said.

You do not suppose that laws that put men who harmed no one are against God's will?

St. Paul also said, "Slaves, obey your masters." As Sobran asked, is that statement really an approbation of slavery? Were slaves wrong to run away from those who "owned" them?

Under this government, do not 12 men on a jury have the ability, as James Jay said, to judge not only the facts of the case, but also the justice of the law itself? Despite what the whole of society or the government wants?

A law that criminalizes non-criminal behavior is an abomination.

St. Thomas had some things to say about the nature of law, too. He said one of the aspects that must be fulfilled for a morally binding law is that the proposed law be an ordinance of right reason. That means that no one may justly mandate obedience to foolish decrees such as, "Everyone must wear purple on Tuesdays under pain of a felony," or, "You cannot peacably carry a firearm without a government permission slip."


Aaron Staub wrote:

If the words of Jesus don't work for you, it was Peter that said "Honor all men, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king" (emphasis mine)

Does one do dishonor to a king by disobeying a bad law?

On the subject of kings, go ahead and read Kings 1:8 1-26. It's very interesting. God was displeased, for some reason.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sans Authoritas]

DRZinn wrote:

Please tell me how allowing people to do whatever doesn't harm anyone else can lead away from liberty?

ReddBecca wrote:

You mean like taking money out of a dead guy's wallet since they don't need it anymore?

That's not harmful to his next-of-kin, who has a right to his money?


ReddBecca wrote:

Or maybe stealing a few thousand dollars from somebody who has several million dollars in savings so they're considerably more well off than the rest of us?

Stealing does not hurt anyone? Stealing $5000 from a multi-millionaire may not be as wrong as stealing $500 from a hobo, but it does not mean that it not an act of unjust aggression.


ReddBecca wrote:

Or maybe videotaping women showering or trying on clothes for your own private video collection?

How does this not harm the women, again? Are the women's wills being unjustly violated, or not? They have a right to privacy that is being violated. Why do you think they are not being harmed?


ReddBecca wrote:

Depending on what you want to do, somebody's going to be a victim even if they never get hurt.

Unjust aggression, fraud, and violating someone else's reasonable will are always thing against which real laws can be passed.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Reddbecca]

Indeed. Those silly blacks back in the 1950's, breaking laws against sitting in white areas of restaurants, and drinking from white-only fountains. How dare they rend the fabric of society?

And remember those filthy criminals who broke the Fugitive Slave Act by smuggling slaves to Canada? No respect for the fabric of society.

If "societal fabric" is held together by laws against things that don't hurt anyone, societal fabric needs to be torn up and hemmed in until it starts resembling a garment that is suited to actually protecting the dignity of human nature, and stops resembling a strait jacket.

Society is held together by voluntary, mutually beneficial acts. Not laws against things that do not harm others.

So you're comparing a man who illegally modified his gun, to people who sought to change the way things were and promote equality between people of different skin colors?

 

[RPCVYemen]

Indeed. Those silly blacks back in the 1950's, breaking laws against sitting in white areas of restaurants, and drinking from white-only fountains. How dare they rend the fabric of society?

If Mr. Olofson had stood on the courthouse steps and converted a A$-15 to select fire as a protest against the NFA, I would have some grudging respect for him. I would think him misguided - but honorable.

But that's not what he did!

Civil disobedience - which is what the luncheon sit-ins were about - involves breaking the law publicly, taking responsibility for your actions, and then accepting punishment for those actions - all as a means to persuade the country that the law is wrong.

Mr. Olofson did none of those things!

1. Mr. Olofson transferred a weapon that was capable of select fire to another person.
2. The weapon had a number of M-16 parts that were not there when it left the factory.
3. Mr. Olofson knew that the weapon was capable of select fire.
4. Mr. Olofson told the man that he (Olofson) had tested[\B] the weapon for select fire.
   

Did Mr. Olofson stand up, take responsibility for his actions? Did he say, "Yes, I converted this weapon - the 2nd Amendment gives the people the right to keep and bear select fire weapons! The law is unjust!"

Not at all - he's not that kind of guy. How many ways did he try to weasel out of the charges.

1. The person to whom he loaned the weapon must have put the M-16 parts in it.
2. The BATF broke into his house, and planted the evidence.
3. Maybe the manufacturer put them there.

That's not civil disobedience - that's a weaselly little guy who turns out to be as great a legal theorist as he was a gunsmith.

Mike

 

[Reddbecca]

RPC-

Very well said.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

RPCVYemen wrote:

So you're comparing a man who illegally modified his gun, to people who sought to change the way things were and promote equality between people of different skin colors?

You're overlooking the core of the message. Entirely.

I'm comparing one unreasonable, unjust law to another. Is one more unjust? Certainly. Is the principle behind the unjust laws and the principle that allows breaking them the same? Aye.

Calling such a man, who harmed no one, a "weasel" because he didn't want to get punished for what people wrongly consider a "crime" is unconscionable.

His motivations do not make his action any less just. Would it have been more honorable to have done it in a public fashion? No doubt. But calling him a "weasel" for trying to keep it hidden from the Arbitrary Rule Enforcers, whose threatening and slimy tactics we saw above, is grossly wrong.

You want "destroying social fabric?" It's done just like that: by tearing a non-violent man away from his family for over two years. Should he have put his family at risk that way? Probably not. Does that justify the thuggish actions of the Arbitrary Rule Enforcement officers and the judges who are imprisoning a non-violent man? Absolutely not.

It could have happened to you, concerning any other kind of "crime." Wouldn't you be tickled to have alleged Second Amendment supporters in here calling you a "weasel" for breaking an unconstitutional, malum prohibitum law?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Reddbecca]

I'm comparing one unreasonable, unjust law to another. Is one more unjust? Certainly. Is the principle behind the unjust laws and the principle that allows breaking them the same? Aye.

No you're saying that Olofson should be regarded as highly as the people that sought to end segregation.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans Authoritas wrote:

I'm comparing one unreasonable, unjust law to another. Is one more unjust? Certainly. Is the principle behind the unjust laws and the principle that allows breaking them the same? Aye.

Reddbecca wrote:

No you're saying that Olofson should be regarded as highly as the people that sought to end segregation.

Reddbecca, no, as a matter of fact, that is not what I am saying. Nor was I comparing the degree of Mr. Olofson's acts to the acts of Sts. Peter or Paul. Those who laid everything on the line for principle are more worthy of honor. But this man is not worthy of the persecution he is enduring for his "crime" that also hurt no one. That is what I am saying.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Reddbecca]

SA-

I have to disagree with you. Olofson deserves what he's getting. He knowingly, willingly, and maybe even maliciously, went against specified federal laws, and he got caught doing it. And if you're stupid enough to get caught breaking the law, because you broadcast the information of your illegal activities, then you definitely deserve to get punished.

Disobedience for the simple sake of not wanting to abide by the rules shouldn't be revered or respected. Olofson could achieve nothing by illegally modifying his rifle, therefore there's no reason to honor him or see him as anything more than a criminal who broke into somebody's house to rob them.

 

[gtmerkley]

gtmerkley's DAD

Generally I follow all laws but I know that sometimes circumstances can arise beyond your control or the inspectors will tell you that you have to do it one way then bust you for doing it that way then swear in court that they never told you that or say that they were wrong to tell you that but you should have know better. My point is that it seems that you are guilty till you are prove you are innocent which is as impossible as proving you are guilty. My pa always said if they want you they will come get you. If you study the law everything can be considered illegal and if you go to trial your going to get it for something it will all be plea bargain time. And the inspectors and there agencies tell you how to live what kind of house you must live in what kind of car what kind of hammer you must use on the job. The EPA sounds good to most people after all there job is to keep the earth clean but after they run all the licensed people out of business they create the problem of making everybody having to do it illegal which leads to more pollution then they ever stopped. If they would use common since and not make things against the law till they come up with away that everyone can comply instead of just saying this is the new law we don't know how anyone can do it but that's your problem. And that is what is scary one dept of the government should never have that much power over people without someone to over see them and say wait a minute there never was a law passed on that You wait till the people say that you can make that law don't be making up your own I figure if I cant make my own law they shouldn't be able too.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Reddbecca wrote:

And if you're stupid enough to get caught breaking the law, because you broadcast the information of your illegal activities, then you definitely deserve to get punished.

You deserve punishment for what? For what crime? Who did he harm? Does a law exist for the sake of having a law? Are rules, no matter what they are about, wholly sacrosanct? Is law something we must bow before and grovel, no matter what it prohibits?

Reddbecca wrote:

Olofson could achieve nothing by illegally modifying his rifle, therefore there's no reason to honor him or see him as anything more than a criminal who broke into somebody's house to rob them.

Except for the fact that he is not a real criminal who has harmed anyone by breaking into someone's house to rob them, he's just like a real criminal. What are you espousing, Redd? Legal positivism. "Having rules" for the sake of having rules: not law for the sake of preserving the men's life, liberty and property.

Such a mindset reminds me of children in a clubhouse who make up rules, like having to say "anawana bing bang" every time they go inside the clubhouse, otherwise they are punished by the other members of the club. No rationale behind it. Just rules for the sake of fun with rules. At least children are wise enough to realize that it would be ridiculous to throw anyone in prison for breaking rules that exist for the sake of having fun with rules. Adults are not so wise. They take themselves and their rules far too seriously.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[rbernie]

But this man is not worthy of the persecution he is enduring for his "crime" that also hurt no one.

We are either a nation of laws, or we are not. Even our nation's founding fathers, seeing as how we find ourselves on the Fourth day in July as we are, did not envision a territory devoid of laws.

Disobedience for the simple sake of not wanting to abide by the rules shouldn't be revered or respected. Olofson could achieve nothing by illegally modifying his rifle, therefore there's no reason to honor him or see him as anything more than a criminal who broke into somebody's house to rob them.

Pretty much so.

Olofson was convicted by a jury of his peers of violating a known law. He knew the law, and his peers were convinced that he broke it. I may or may not have arrived at the same conclusion, but that is an irrelevant observation. His peers found him guilty of violating a law, and his peers support the law that he violated. If you disagree with either of those positions, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

What I do find most interesting in this debate is that for all of the hot air being bandied about about how unjust these laws are, I see that NOBODY has seen fit to address my simple challenge:

For all of the blustering about how the gawdawful F Troop is busy enforcing unconstitutional laws - how many of y'all have actually taken the time to write a paper letter to each and every one of your CongressCritters, urging them to utilize the momentum of the Heller decision to our advantage in some meaningful way?

Sans Authoritas - I have come to conclude that you are but one of the many Internet Sophists, those who live to play with words to elevate some intellectual position but who, in the end, are nothing but hot air and endless quarrel. Have fun with all that.

I would suggest to anyone actually still reading this endless thread that you take the time to do something constructive with your concerns. Continued bitching about how the F Troop railroads innocent gun owners accomplishes nothing.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Rbernie wrote:

We are either a nation of laws, or we are not. Even our nation's founding fathers, seeing as how we find ourselves on the Fourth day in July as we are, did not envision a territory devoid of laws.

The Founding Fathers never wanted laws for the sake of laws. They wanted laws for the sake of effecting justice and peace. Laws for the sake of preserving certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson himself, who knew what the country was supposed to be as well as anyone back then, supported the Pennsylvania farmers who perpetrated the Whiskey Rebellion. Who were breaking the law.

I have never advocated having no laws. I have advocated having laws that make sense. This law does not. You agree that the law doesn't make sense, it seems, only that it must be obeyed because it is a law. If you like senseless laws, feel free to support their enforcement and adhere to them. But don't dare throw someone in prison for a non-violent act. Such a man is no threat to individuals in society. That is why prisons and the death penalty exist: to remove a threat to society. Any other use of prisons or the death penalty is an arrogant act of trying to impose God's justice, or an arrogant act of revenge.


Rbernie wrote:

What I do find most interesting in this debate is that for all of the hot air being bandied about about how unjust these laws are, I see that NOBODY has seen fit to address my simple challenge:

For all of the blustering about how the gawdawful F Troop is busy enforcing unconstitutional laws - how many of y'all have actually taken the time to write a paper letter to each and every one of your CongressCritters, urging them to utilize the momentum of the Heller decision to our advantage in some meaningful way?

Ah. Letters to congressmen. Because those in power who love power and have nothing to gain by doing the right thing, and everything to gain by increasing the size and scope of government due to sweetheart deals and kickbacks are going to listen and to letters about "principle" and "justice?" Hardly. That's why I'm done working from the top down. I am working on a grassroots level. The institution became corrupt because it is the nature of the institution was flawed from its very drafting, and the individuals in society let it become more corrupt. The problem started in the individual hearts and minds of the people, and that is where it has to be corrected. Take away the support and foundation for such unjust laws, and the institutions that enforce them will collapse. That is the only effective way to effect real change.

Sans Authoritas - I have come to conclude that you are but one of the many Internet Sophists, those who live to play with words to elevate some intellectual position but who, in the end, are nothing but hot air and endless quarrel. Have fun with all that.

Rbernie, you're more than welcome to think that. I will have an endless quarrel, as long as imprudent and unwise ideas have no end. But do you know what? I don't know if this merits any respect, but I will never use violence against anyone who doesn't see things my way. A lot of people here can't say the same thing. People who have mentioned "punching someone in the face" because they spoke out against what alleged contributions they believe veterans have made, for example. Violence, not reason, is the default tool of some. That is what unjust laws are: a recourse to violence to solve problems that never existed before the law was passed. That, sir, is insanity. Again, you are welcome to call me a sophist, if you believe that what I espouse is irrational.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[taprackbang]

Anybody that fully believes a government document needs to have their head examined. I do not believe a word of it. It demonizes a man for having 'a thousand rounds of ammo.' That is the tenor of the document. And this is from the agency that brought you WACO.

Shame on us for giving the BATFE a free pass.

 

[texas bulldog]

SA,

even when i agree with your message, i find these posts irritating. i'm certain i'm not the only one. every thread you involve yourself in deteriorates into these kind of debates. do you have nothing batter to do than be the self-appointed THR contrarian? your point has been made. this debate seems off-topic to me.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

What is the topic? It seems to me that the brunt of the discussion was about how this husband and father is justly going to prison for the "crime" of making a machine gun. I see a lot of people ignoring the intrinsic justice or injustice of such a punishment, and who instead decide to cover their illogic with words on a piece of paper that prohibit certain behaviors for no reason. I contend that. Nobody else is sticking up for this guy. If that makes me a "contrarian," I am not ashamed.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[dm1333]

The sky is blue.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

The sky is blue.

dm1333, amen, brother. Keep embracing the truth.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Reddbecca]

SA-

Like it or not, Olofson was found guilty, by a jury no less, of having violated federal laws, making him guilty of crimes against the government. He violated the 1986 FOPA by manufacturing a machinegun after 1986, and the 1934 NFA by failing to register it with the government. We don't agree with these laws, but we must follow them. As said we're a nation of laws, and we must adopt a standard of wanting the laws to actually be enforced until such time that the laws have been repealed or changed so that such behavior is no longer seen as a crime. Until then, suck it up!

You say that because Olofson hurt nobody then he shouldn't be guilty of a crime. You're basically saying that if somebody drives while drunk as a skunk but didn't crash then they shouldn't be guilty of drunk driving. You're also saying that we should completely ignore graffiti if it's on city property rather than somebody's private property.

 

[DRZinn]

so its ok to break the law as long as it does not hurt anyone?

Ummmm.... yes.

You mean like taking money out of a dead guy's wallet since they don't need it anymore?

That money belongs to whomever he left it to in his will. At no point have I or SA advocated theft. Equating liberty with theft is asinine.

Or maybe stealing a few thousand dollars from somebody who has several million dollars in savings so they're considerably more well off than the rest of us?

See above.

Or maybe videotaping women showering or trying on clothes for your own private video collection?

What part of "does not violate anyone's rights" are you unable to understand?

Civil disobedience - which is what the luncheon sit-ins were about - involves breaking the law publicly, taking responsibility for your actions, and then accepting punishment for those actions

So if I believe a law is wrong and unjustly restrains me, my only moral action is to willingly accept being punished for something that is not wrong??? That's just twisted.

if you're stupid enough to get caught breaking the law, because you broadcast the information of your illegal activities, then you definitely deserve to get punished.

Wait a minute - is it right, or is it stupid?

Nobody else is sticking up for this guy.

Hey, wait a minute!

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans Authoritas wrote:

Nobody else is sticking up for this guy.

DRZinn wrote:

Hey, wait a minute!

Apologies, DRZinn. : )

-Sans Authoritas

 

[DRZinn]

crimes against the government

!

We don't agree with these laws, but we must follow them.

Nonsense.

You're basically saying that if somebody drives while drunk as a skunk but didn't crash then they shouldn't be guilty of drunk driving.

[strike]I'm[/strike] We're saying if he doesn't hurt anyone he's done nothing wrong. Who are you to decide when I am and am not capable of operating a machine or owning a machine gun responsibly?

You're also saying that we should completely ignore graffiti if it's on city property rather than somebody's private property.

I neither said nor implied that.

 

[Just Jim]

Really though the guy got by with this infraction pretty easy. Under the Clintons they would have killed him and his family and burnt down his house just like Waco. At Waco the reason they went there was for auto weapons.

jj

 

[Gunnerpalace]

IBTL:

Within the scope of the laws of July 2008 (constitutional or not) He was in possession of a Fully Automatic AR-15, which was not registered prior to May 19 1986, which is a felony, yes 922o blows but in the scope of the laws of this moment and time, like them or not, what he was doing was illegal.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

You say that because Olofson hurt nobody then he shouldn't be guilty of a crime. You're basically saying that if somebody drives while drunk as a skunk but didn't crash then they shouldn't be guilty of drunk driving.

Is someone who drives drunk putting others at grave and unreasonable risk whether or not he crashes, or not?

You're also saying that we should completely ignore graffiti if it's on city property rather than somebody's private property.

Well, if you mean that I'm saying there should only be private property, and not "city property," you're right. He who has control over what is done with the property and who may actually be on the property is the one who owns the property.

For example, did you know you do not own your money? It's true: you cannot, by law, melt down your own nickels and pennies for the metal therein. The individuals in government must own your money, if they decide what you may peacefully do with it.

-Sans Authoritas