Attornies said a couple of weeks ago that information regarding the Las Vegas shooting that the press has been pursuing could not be released due to an ongoing investigation and possible charges pending. On Friday, an Arizona man who sold ammunition to Stephen Paddock was charged for manufacturing armor-piercing bullets.
Some of the bullets were found inside the Mandalay Bay Hotel room that Paddock occupied with Douglas Haig’s fingerprints on them, according to a criminal complaint that was filed in federal court in Phoenix.
Haig, a 55-year-old aerospace engineer who has manufactured ammunition at his home as a hobby for the past 25 years, also sold Paddock 720 rounds of tracer ammunition weeks prior to the October 1, 2017 shooting that killed 58 and wounded at least 500.
While some of the magazines were loaded with the armor piercing ammo, the complaint did not state whether any of the ammo was used in the shooting, not that it would make a difference since apparently, no one was wearing armor.
Just a half hour after being charged, Haig held a news conference and said that there was nothing suspicious about Paddock when he sold him the tracer rounds.
NBC News reports:
Haig told investigators that when Paddock bought the ammunition at his home in suburban Phoenix, Paddock went to his car to get gloves and put them on before taking the box from Haig, the complaint said.
“I had no contribution to what Paddock did,” Haig told reporters earlier Friday, adding that there was nothing unusual about the type or quantity of ammunition the shooter bought. “I had no way to see into his mind.”
He appeared in court Friday and was released under the condition he not possess guns or ammunition. If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison and a fine as high as $250,000.
Haig and his business partner, whose name wasn’t provided, sold 40 to 50 rounds of incendiary rounds to Paddock in late August at a Las Vegas gun show, according to the complaint.
The next month, Haig said he met Paddock at a Phoenix gun show and that he was well-dressed and polite.
He didn’t have the quantity of tracer ammunition on hand that Paddock was seeking, so Paddock contacted him several days later and lined up a sale at Haig’s home.
Haig said he was shocked and sickened when a federal agent informed him of the massacre 11 hours after it unfolded.
In 2012, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was taking comments as they looked to ban armor piercing ammunition because they considered it dangerous to public safety, something they have no Constitutional say on.
At that time, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action wrote:
Under the law, adopted in 1986, “armor piercing ammunition” is defined as “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” A second definition, added in the 1990s, includes “a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.”
Because handguns have been made in certain rifle calibers, many bullets that were designed originally for rifles also “may be used in a handgun.” If such projectiles are made of the metals listed in the law, they are restricted as “armor piercing ammunition” unless they meet one of the law’s exemptions. Being considered at this time is the exemption for “a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”
First, BATFE suggested that it believes that the “armor piercing ammunition” law was intended to affect all ammunition capable of penetrating soft body armor worn by law enforcement officers. NRA reminded BATFE that the law was intended to protect law enforcement officers against the potential threat posed a very narrowly-defined category of projectiles: those, such as KTW and Arcane, which by virtue of their hard metal construction were designed and intended to be used by law enforcement officers to shoot through hard objects, such as automobile glass and doors, when fired at the velocities typical of handgun-caliber ammunition fired from handguns. Neither before nor since the law’s enactment, has an officer been killed due to such a bullet penetrating soft body armor.
NRA further pointed out that the legislative history of the law clearly shows that members of Congress, including the sponsor of the law in the House, Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.), a decorated former NYPD police officer, expressly did not want the law to restrict rifle-caliber bullets that happen to also be useable in handguns chambered to use rifle cartridges.
Second, BATFE says it considers projectiles to not be exempt under the “sporting purposes” test if they “pose a threat to public safety and law enforcement.” BATFE also expressed concern that since the law was adopted, various new rifle-caliber handguns have been invented. On that point, NRA made clear that the sporting purposes exemption is straightforward: it applies to all projectiles that are “primarily intended for sporting purposes”–nothing more, and nothing less. Under the law, a projectile would be exempt if it is primarily intended for sporting purposes, even if it is secondarily intended for self-defense or some other legitimate purpose. Furthermore, the law does not condition its restrictive language or its “sporting purposes” exemption on the design of a particular handgun; the law is concerned only with specific projectiles that can be used in handguns. NRA cautioned the BATFE against interpreting the law in a manner more restrictive than Congress intended.
The fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment was no more written for sporting purposes than it was written for hunting. Those are irrelevant arguments. Furthermore, the Second Amendment seems pretty straightforward about arms, which would include ammunition as well as other arms such as knives and other weapons. It states that right is not to be infringed.
The BATFE has never had constitutional authority to ban anything. All legislative authority would come from Congress, but seeing as the Second Amendment is so clear, when they write legislation regarding arms, they are doing so outside the boundaries of the Constitution.
So what if the guy made and sold ammo that was armor piercing? Our forefathers would have literally been up in arms over this.
If you recall, it was the British coming for their cannons, guns, and gunpowder that eventually sparked the shot heard round the world. I’m sure the BATFE would have a serious problem with you owning a working cannon these days.
Haig had nothing to do with the shooting. Making and selling bullets should not be a crime. So what, if he didn’t have a permit. Does a permit ensure the bullets are safer than those made by someone without a permit? Nope, it just ensures that government gives you permission to do what you do and gets a cut out of it. It ensures no more safety than the frivolous approval of the Food and Drug Administration’s drugs, which have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
In my estimation, these charges are ridiculous.
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost