Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on February 03, 2018, 10:16:02 AM
-
They apparently just filed charges against a "backyard" ammo maker (for want of a better term). I don't know what AZ laws are re: selling ammo in this way.
I can't help but wonder though, if "authorities" are just going to start arresting people with even tangential association to the shooter just to say they are "solving" the crime. It's starting to sound a little like blaming a Youtube video.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/02/charges-for-man-who-sold-las-vegas-gunman-stephen-paddock-ammunition.html
-
Probably just trying to arrest somebody because of the "do something!" menatality.
The guy may have been operating in a gray area if he was selling ammo without a FFL.
Correction, no FFL is needed to sell ammo, only to manufacture ammo for sale. Got my laws mixed up.
-
To manufacture ammunition for sale you need a type 06 FFL. They mentioned AP ammo. To manufacture AP ammo you need a type 10 FFL.
AP ammo has a very specific definition under federal law.
Whatever I may think about US firearms laws, it's common knowledge that it's a regulated industry and/or hobby. I have little to no sympathy for folks that get into a firearms business and don't do the necessary paperwork and licensing. It makes us all look like ignorant yahoos.
I do wonder if this guy is one of those gun board denizens that are always like "well the ATF has to prove my intent and wink wink I don't intend to do [insert illegal manufacture here]"
ETA:
Probably just trying to arrest somebody because of the "do something!" menatality.
The guy may have been operating in a gray area if he was selling ammo without a FFL
Nothing grey about it. If you manufacture ammo for sale, you need an FFL. A type 06 is named: Manufacturer of Ammunition for Firearms
-
Whatever I may think about US firearms laws, it's common knowledge that it's a regulated industry and/or hobby. I have little to no sympathy for folks that get into a firearms business and don't do the necessary paperwork and licensing. It makes us all look like ignorant yahoos.
I do wonder if this guy is one of those gun board denizens that are always like "well the ATF has to prove my intent and wink wink I don't intend to do [insert illegal manufacture here]"
If he broke the law, then he broke the law. I would only hope that he then gets punished appropriately, versus as a scapegoat.
I just worry about a "mob mentality" here because everyone is both perplexed and agitated that they can't find a motive for the actual shooter, and I would hate to see others rounded up and falsely or disproportionately punished just to satisfy the mob.
-
If he broke the law, then he broke the law. I would only hope that he then gets punished appropriately, versus as a scapegoat
Wait a second. Aren't you of the opinion that most, if not all, gun laws are anti-freedom and unconstitutional?
-
Sounds like they finally found another loophole that needs closing. Anyone can just buy a machine and make as many bullets as they want with no regulation at all. Not only that but the storage of highly flammable gunpowder & explosive primers, which are bought by the thousand, in residential areas.
Yes, I've left out pertinent facts, just as the MSM will do once the DNC twists the narrative.
-
To manufacture ammunition for sale you need a type 06 FFL. They mentioned AP ammo. To manufacture AP ammo you need a type 10 FFL.
AP ammo has a very specific definition under federal law.
I wonder if he was using those 62 grain .223 bullets with the steel cores? (not sure what they are called, but are defined by federal law as *not* AP) Deliberately over-charge and hope he takes a plea deal. If not, by the time he gets off he will have spent $10000's on defense, and the public will have forgotten about it anyway.
-
I wonder if he was using those 62 grain .223 bullets with the steel cores? (not sure what they are called, but are defined by federal law as *not* AP) Deliberately over-charge and hope he takes a plea deal. If not, by the time he gets off he will have spent $10000's on defense, and the public will have forgotten about it anyway.
The court document references .308 ammo. I didn't see anything about .223. I didn't read the whole document, but it sounds like the guy was using pulled .308 AP/incindiary bullets and reloading them as complete cartridges and then selling the ammo.
-
Memo to self: Always wear rubber exam gloves when reloading
-
Sounds like a hobbyist reloader who decided to sell some of his reloads . . . this used to be very common, but I guess fed.gov imposed licensing requirements a while back in order to commercially sell the ammo you handload. Probably have to be a pretty big time "hobbyist" to come to the Fed's attention, or have your name/address show up on ammo boxes tied to the perp of a major crime.
I've heard anecdotally that there's less hobbyist sale of ammo going on than there used to be, primarily because of liability/lawsuit issues rather than fed.gov laws.
-
Sounds like a hobbyist reloader who decided to sell some of his reloads . . . this used to be very common, but I guess fed.gov imposed licensing requirements a while back in order to commercially sell the ammo you handload. Probably have to be a pretty big time "hobbyist" to come to the Fed's attention, or have your name/address show up on ammo boxes tied to the perp of a major crime.
Yeah, in 1968.
Manufacturing ammo falls under the exact same "engaged in the buisness " verbiage as importing and manufacturing firearms in GCA.
I'm genuinely surprised that isn't common knowledge on this board. We're pretty gun savvy folks.
-
I'm genuinely surprised that isn't common knowledge on this board. We're pretty gun savvy folks.
In my case, I knew that selling ammo without an FFL is legal, but I thought it was the "engaged in business" part where things got murky. Like HankB, I figured much of the ammo at gun shows was just homemade reloads and the people selling it were not "engaged in business" so the ATF just let them be.
-
In my case, I knew that selling ammo without an FFL is legal, but I thought it was the "engaged in business" part where things got murky. Like HankB, I figured much of the ammo at gun shows was just homemade reloads and the people selling it were not "engaged in business" so the ATF just let them be.
Selling for money is engaging in business. You can reload all you want if you give it away, and maybe even if your friends buy the components and bring them to you for the actual loading. Taking money for your efforts is being in business -- even if you're not making a profit.
-
Perhaps I'm projecting.
I've been building firearms from scratch and 80% receivers for a while now, so the line on "engaged in the buisness" is pretty clear in my mind, as it's one I strive to stay clear of. I've always assumed that folks at gun shows selling ammo were type 06 ffl's as otherwise they'd be very low hanging fruit for the feds.
Mayhaps that particular wrinkle of federal law isn't as well known as I assumed. A good rule of thumb though, is if you are taking money* for something firearms related, check very carefully because you probably need a license of some kind.
*note I said taking money, not making money. ATF has been very clear that a profit is not a requirement of being in buisness.
-
Ah, but selling and buying guns for collection purposes is lawful without a FFL. Those guys are selling "for money" but not "engaging in business."
-
Wait a second. Aren't you of the opinion that most, if not all, gun laws are anti-freedom and unconstitutional?
I would probably mostly agree with that, but from the sound of your post, I think you might be mixing me up with someone else on the forum.
Otherwise, to answer the question in the context of this case, what I want, and what IS, are two different discussion points. It appears laws are in effect regarding this case, so my points are that (until the laws change): Are they really arresting him for breaking the law? If so, will he get fair treatment and only be charged fairly (e.g., doing business without a license), or is he going to be an example or scapegoat doing years of jail time so somebody somewhere can say they responded to the shooting?
-
To manufacture ammunition for sale you need a type 06 FFL. They mentioned AP ammo. To manufacture AP ammo you need a type 10 FFL.
AP ammo has a very specific definition under federal law.
Whatever I may think about US firearms laws, it's common knowledge that it's a regulated industry and/or hobby. I have little to no sympathy for folks that get into a firearms business and don't do the necessary paperwork and licensing. It makes us all look like ignorant yahoos.
The gunny world is full of people who don't seem so bright, and believe dumb things.
-
Perhaps I'm projecting.
I've been building firearms from scratch and 80% receivers for a while now, so the line on "engaged in the buisness" is pretty clear in my mind, as it's one I strive to stay clear of. I've always assumed that folks at gun shows selling ammo were type 06 ffl's as otherwise they'd be very low hanging fruit for the feds.
Mayhaps that particular wrinkle of federal law isn't as well known as I assumed. A good rule of thumb though, is if you are taking money* for something firearms related, check very carefully because you probably need a license of some kind.
*note I said taking money, not making money. ATF has been very clear that a profit is not a requirement of being in buisness.
See to my mind engaging in business would be producing with the intent to sell, not not just taking cash for something. IE, I'm going to make some 40s&w to sell vs I've gotten rid of all of my 40s&w firearms so I may as well sell my ammo off. Because that's pretty much how every other item or transaction is weighed to determine if someone is engaging or business or not.
But of course, and has already been said, what I think and what the law says are often two very different things.
Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
-
Quote from Fly320s:
Wait a second. Aren't you of the opinion that most, if not all, gun laws are anti-freedom and unconstitutional?
Quote from Ben:
I would probably mostly agree with that, but from the sound of your post, I think you might be mixing me up with someone else on the forum.
Well, somebody with balls has to push the pendulum the other way. :rofl:
Terry, 230RN
Mild disclaimer: Laws are considered constitutional and enforceable until successful challenges are made in courts of competent jurisdiction.
My problem resides in the fact that plainly unconstitutional laws go unchallenged for many decades, and the "challenges" take lots and lots of money and time. This results in a situation where lawmakers tend to make any old laws they want to with the practical assurance that they can get away with it: "If they don't like it, they can take it to the Supreme Court."
They, meaning thee and me.
-
Ah, but selling and buying guns for collection purposes is lawful without a FFL. Those guys are selling "for money" but not "engaging in business."
Yes, if they have a C&R FFL. Even then, the rules are more or less clear that they can buy and sell only for the purpose of "enhancing the collection." Example: Sarco has, in the past, offered C&R eligible firearms for sale, with the caveat that they may not be safe to fire and should be checked by a competent gunsmith. They often sell them for a reduced price if you buy three. So a collector could legally buy three, scavenge parts to make the best of the lot into a safe, functional firearm, and then sell the other two -- and remain within the BATFE guidelines for "enhancing the collection."
I'm not aware of anything in the laws or regulations that addresses collecting other than under the umbrella of a C&R license.
-
^
I'm not aware of anything in the laws or regulations that addresses collecting other than under the umbrella of a C&R license.
Local, possibly. Like --where is it, New Jersey? --if you have even an empty cartridge case in your car you can be drawn, eviscerated, and quartered for it even though the Feds do not address this "problem." Well, an exaggeration, but just to illustrate that there can be more restrictive laws than the Feds'.
Terry
-
Ah, but selling and buying guns for collection purposes is lawful without a FFL. Those guys are selling "for money" but not "engaging in business."
It's not the selling that got him. it's the manufacturing for sale. The guys I see at shows around here selling reloads are selling their own, so I assume they have a 06 FFL to manufacture, or else some fresh faced agent would have snagged them.
If you want to buy a bunch of Federal 5.56, and sell it for profit at a gunshow the feds don't care. Under a fuzzy, not determined by case law yet, number of Firearms you may do so without a license as well. I warn that context can be very important. The ATF has published letters that you can sell as little as one firearm, at a loss, and they will consider you "in the business".
You may not manufacture so much as one firearm, or one round of ammunition, (or a Destructive Device) for sale without an FFL however.
It should be noted that DD's and AP ammo require a different, more expensive FFL then normal ammo.
Next ask me if an unlicensed individual can ever sell ammo or a firearm they have manufactured. >:D
This guy is about to find out that it doesn't take very many sales at all for the ATF to want you to have a license.
-
The gunny world is full of people who don't seem so bright, and believe dumb things.
Fixed!
-
??? ???
Is there a link that spells out exactly what the guy did and what the charges are? I am seeing in one part of the article they say they found AP ammo in the hotel room after the shooting that this guy made. Later in the story, they say he sold Paddock a bunch of tracer rounds. Are they confusing AP ammo with tracer rounds? Is tracer ammo covered under the same regs as AP ammo with regard to licensing? I am am not even sure if Paddock even fired any of this guy's ammo during the shooting, just that they found a box of ammo with his name and address.
-
??? ???
Is there a link that spells out exactly what the guy did and what the charges are? I am seeing in one part of the article they say they found AP ammo in the hotel room after the shooting that this guy made. Later in the story, they say he sold Paddock a bunch of tracer rounds. Are they confusing AP ammo with tracer rounds? Is tracer ammo covered under the same regs as AP ammo with regard to licensing? I am am not even sure if Paddock even fired any of this guy's ammo during the shooting, just that they found a box of ammo with his name and address.
Click on the FoxNews link, then click on the court document link.
-
??? ???
Is there a link that spells out exactly what the guy did and what the charges are? I am seeing in one part of the article they say they found AP ammo in the hotel room after the shooting that this guy made. Later in the story, they say he sold Paddock a bunch of tracer rounds. Are they confusing AP ammo with tracer rounds? Is tracer ammo covered under the same regs as AP ammo with regard to licensing? I am am not even sure if Paddock even fired any of this guy's ammo during the shooting, just that they found a box of ammo with his name and address.
Different licenses.
My understanding is this:
Cops found AP in the hotel room with a non-Paddock fingerprint.
Fingerprint came back to this Haig guy.
When investigating Haig it was discovered that he sells remanufactured ammo as a hobby.
Haig, while being interviewed, admitted to selling Paddock 720 tracers.
Haig is now being charged with manufacturing the AP ammo (that had his print on it) without a license.
-
Haig is now being charged with manufacturing the AP ammo (that had his print on it) without a license.
Which to me is okay, again with the caveat that what the law is and what I want it to be are two different things. My concern in all this is that they don't grab people and charge them with more severe crimes as "accomplices" etc. simply because they don't have anyone obvious to prosecute for Vegas.
-
Not picking on you personally, Ben, but I do want to say this.
Which to me is okay, again with the caveat that what the law is and what I want it to be are two different things.
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.
My concern in all this is that they don't grab people and charge them with more severe crimes as "accomplices" etc. simply because they don't have anyone obvious to prosecute for Vegas.
Which is probably what is happening. Someone's gotta pay. Also see: charge stacking.
-
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.
I understand where you're coming from, and I probably shouldn't be using the word "okay", but can't think of something else that would fit with my main point of not wanting to see someone railroaded.
-
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.
-
I read a story claiming the police found a box or carton with an address label for Haig, and that was how they traced him.
When investigating Haig it was discovered that he sells remanufactured ammo as a hobby.
This suggests more of a small business than a "hobby" activity.
Haig, while being interviewed, admitted to selling Paddock 720 tracers.
It would seem that Haig's talking to investigators was a mistake.
-
This suggests more of a small business than a "hobby" activity.
The term hobby was from Haig's statement.
I agree it looks more like a small buisness.
-
It would seem that Haig's talking to investigators was a mistake.
Maybe. But it's probably better to be defending yourself against a charge of making ammunition without a license than against a charge of being an accomplice in 58 murders and however many cases of attempted murder.
-
It would seem that Haig's talking to investigators was a mistake.
Talking to investigators without your lawyer present is a mistake.
-
Selling for money is engaging in business. You can reload all you want if you give it away, and maybe even if your friends buy the components and bring them to you for the actual loading. Taking money for your efforts is being in business -- even if you're not making a profit.
Is that in the same regards as manufacturing/selling firearms as a business? As in are you just cranking them out with the specific intent of selling them, or did you make some and then later decided you wanted to sell it.
The ATF has published letters that you can sell as little as one firearm, at a loss, and they will consider you "in the business".
Wasn't there a sort of recent change on how they interpreted it? Like a little bit more restrictive than it use to be?
-
I found this article to be interesting ... [popcorn]
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/wayne-allyn-root-vegas-massacre-expose-really-happened/
-
I find this concept to be amusing.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
(https://minnlawyer.com/files/2017/05/Depositphotos_9324528_xl-2015.jpg)
-
I found this article to be interesting ... [popcorn]
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/wayne-allyn-root-vegas-massacre-expose-really-happened/
I love a good conspiracy theory.
Let me repeat that for emphasis: I love a good conspiracy theory.
That is not a good conspiracy theory.
-
I found this article to be interesting ... [popcorn]
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/wayne-allyn-root-vegas-massacre-expose-really-happened/
You and the author need another layer of tinfoil. Ot maybe upgrade to leadfoil.
-
I found this article to be interesting ... [popcorn]
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/wayne-allyn-root-vegas-massacre-expose-really-happened/
I didn't see them mention that the local FBI investigators were ordered to ignore leads/information about other shooters.
-
On the kiddie porn thing - wasn't that found on his brother's computer, or something? Or was it on the shooter's?
-
On the kiddie porn thing - wasn't that found on his brother's computer, or something? Or was it on the shooter's?
IIRC it was the brother's not the shooter's.
-
Plenty of crap that smells to high heaven with this mess but gross incompetence on the part of those investigating could account for most of it.
-
IIRC it was the brother's not the shooter's.
I read it was both the shooter and his brother's computers that had the child porn on it.
bob