Where did the shooter get the gun that shot trumps ear
Executive summary
Law enforcement and multiple news outlets report that the AR‑style rifle used to wound former President Donald Trump in the Butler, Pennsylvania rally shooting was an AR‑15–type rifle that investigators believe had been purchased years earlier by the shooter’s father — reportedly a Defense Procurement Manufacturing Services (DPMS) AR‑15 bought in 2013 — and that the suspected shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, used that family‑owned weapon in the attack [1] [2] [3]. Those accounts rely on law‑enforcement briefings and secondary reporting; at the time of these stories, some official identifications remained unconfirmed in public records, and coverage comes from sources with different institutional perspectives [2] [1].
1. The basic chain of custody reported: father bought the rifle, son used it
Multiple outlets say investigators believe the shooter fired an AR‑style rifle that had been purchased by his father years earlier, with reporting repeatedly identifying the firearm as the father’s AR‑15 rather than a weapon the suspect bought himself at the last minute [2] [3]. Everytown’s summary notes law‑enforcement sources indicating the rifle was a DPMS AR‑15 that the shooter’s father purchased in 2013, and The Smoking Gun likewise reports that investigators believe the alleged gunman used his father’s AR‑15 to carry out the attack [1] [2].
2. The weapon type and later identifications — DPMS AR‑15 appears in multiple reports
Initial descriptions uniformly characterize the firearm as an AR‑style rifle; later reporting names a DPMS AR‑15 specifically, and describes the platform as chambered to fire .223/5.56 ammunition — details consistent with AR‑15 family rifles — though some reporting emphasized that law enforcement had not publicly released a final, formal manufacturer/model confirmation at the time of those stories [1] [2]. That means while several reputable outlets point to a DPMS AR‑15, the narrative rests on law‑enforcement briefings and investigative reporting rather than a posted serial‑number trace or an agency press release in the public domain [1] [2].
3. What the reporting does not — and cannot — prove from available public documents
None of the provided sources supply a publicly posted ATF trace record, a photographed sales receipt, or an explicit, contemporaneous law‑enforcement affidavit in the public record that proves purchase details beyond the repeated claim that the father bought the rifle in 2013; those are the kinds of primary records that would definitively establish legal ownership and the point of sale [1] [2]. Reporting from the BBC and others summarizes investigators’ beliefs that the weapon was bought by Crooks’ father, but those summaries explicitly reflect investigators’ statements rather than a cited sales document released for public review [3].
4. How source perspective and institutional agendas shape the narrative
Advocacy organizations like Everytown frame the weapon’s origin to underscore concerns about widespread availability of AR‑style rifles and retailer practices, which is consistent with their gun‑safety mission and shapes the emphasis of their coverage [1]. News outlets such as The Smoking Gun and the BBC present the same central factual claim — the rifle was the father’s AR‑15 — but with different editorial tones: The Smoking Gun ties the weapon to the broader cultural context of “guntubers” and youth exposure, while the BBC focuses on investigative detail about the assailant’s background and shooting position [2] [3]. Readers should note those differing emphases when weighing what the available evidence supports.
5. Bottom line and gaps for further confirmation
Available reporting converges on a clear, simple claim: investigators believe the shooter used an AR‑style rifle that his father purchased (reported as a 2013 DPMS AR‑15) [1] [2] [3]. However, public documentation establishing the exact chain of legal title, the original point of sale, and any formal forensic trace has not been produced in the materials provided here, so the claim rests on law‑enforcement briefings and press reporting rather than a final, independently posted evidentiary record [1] [2].