There is a case called the Staples case that requires defendant have knowledge that a weapon is a machine gun and the U.S. Attorney’s office has a written policy instructing its attorneys to be very diligent regarding the issue of whether a defendant possess such requisite knowledge. A quick search on the internet will show the great deal of controversy that surrounds Olofson’s conviction. Here is the government’s brief regarding Olofson’s PRETRIAL MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE in the Olofson case.

The defense claims Olofson was convicted for a malfunction that occurred while his friend shot a semi-auto version of the M-16 at their local firing range:

On December 5, 2006, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Wisconsin returned a one count indictment against David Roland Olofson (“Olofson”), charging him with knowingly transferring a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o) and 924(a)(2).

Olofson was arraigned on the charge and entered a plea of not guilty. In accordance with the pretrial motion schedule, on January 5, 2007, Olofson filed a motion to exclude “evidence seized at the defendant, David R.Olofson’s residence pursuant to the search warrant executed in [this] matter.” (Mot. at 2.)

Olofson argues that the evidence seized at his residence, which “includes various firearms and other evidence in the Evidence Control Log” (Def’s Br. at 2), is not relevant to the charge of having transferred a machine gun to one Robert J. Kiernicki. More precisely, Olofson argues that relevant evidence is established by any showing, however slight, that the evidence makes more or less likely that the defendant committed the crime in question. In Mr. Olofson’s case, however, the evidence seized at his residence does not make it more or less likely that he transferred the Olympic Arms, Model CAR-AR, .223 caliber rifle to Mr. Kiernicki as the Government need only prove that Mr. Olofson transferred the machine gun and that the Olympic Arms, Model CAR-AR, was both a firearm and a machine gun as defined in the United States Code, pursuant [to] … 26 U.S.C. [§] 5845(b), 26 U.S.C. [§] 5845(a)(6) and 18 U.S.C. [§] 921(a)(3)(A).

As such the evidence seized at his residence should be excluded by this Court.(Def’s Br. at 3.)

In its response, the government states that among the items seized during the execution of the search warrant were “firearms components, tools used to modify firearms, and a manual that described - among other things - how to convert a firearm into a machinegun.” (Gov’t’s Br. at 1.)

The government asserts that in order to establish a violation of U.S.C. § 922(o) it must prove (1) that
Olofson transferred a weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can easily be restored to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger; and (2) that the defendant knew, or was aware of, the essential characteristics of the firearm that made it a “machinegun.” United States v. McGiffen, 267 F.3d 581, 590 (7th Cir. 2001). The government then argues:

The government expects the evidence at trial to establish that Olofson provided the machinegun in question to another individual. Moreover, the evidence will establish that Olofson converted the gun into a machinegun. The manual describing how that conversion can be accomplished, the tools for making such a conversion, and the components used to construct firearms all are relevant evidence. Such evidence will corroborate witness testimony as to Olofson’s converting the firearm in question into one that satisfies the statutory definition of a “machinegun.” In short, Olofson’s know-how and his possession of necessary tools and components are a part - and only a part - of the evidence that makes it more likely that he knew that the weapon in question was a machinegun. The evidence is therefore relevant under Fed. R. Evid. 401, and there is no basis for prohibiting its introduction at trial.

(Gov’t’s Br. at 2.)

But see the appellate brief filed by Gun Owners of America.

See also www.markknapp.multiply.com.