Not picking on you personally, Ben, but I do want to say this.
If you don't agree with the law, you shouldn't be OK with someone being prosecuted for breaking it. In my mind, that means that everyone should always be punished everytime for every violation. We know that doesn't happen and can't happen, which is why we have prosecutor's discretion.
Which is probably what is happening. Someone's gotta pay. Also see: charge stacking.
Charge stacking (
i.e. prosecutorial over-reaching) is always bad. Beyond that, there are situations when disagreeing with a law but holding people to it is still appropriate. A situation in which someone knows the law yet intentionally chooses to disregard it is different from a situation where someone innocently breaks a law and essentially gets trapped. If Mr. Haig was intentionally manufacturing ammunition for resale without a license, and especially if he was intentionally manufacturing armor-piercing ammunition, I would find it hard to excuse him just because I think the laws shouldn't be there. That's very different from, for example, the Shaneen Allen case, where she honestly thought her Pennsylvania carry permit was valid in New Jersey and volunteered to a police officer that she was carrying in New Jersey. **IF** Mr. Haig was intentionally flouting the laws regarding the requirement for an FFL to manufacture ammunition, I'd have to think twice before voting to nullify his charges. In the case of Ms. Allen, I wouldn't hesitate.
I suppose that boils down to situational ethics. Some people accept situational ethics as valid, others don't.
In general, if we are to be a nation of laws we should not object to someone being prosecuted for breaking a law. Not okay with piling on multiple, overlapping charges, but if we reach a point where we don't want to prosecute for breaking laws, then we're in a state of anarchy and everyone gets to decide which laws they want to follow and which they want to ignore.