A Houston Man is the First Person Charged Under the Trump Bump Stock Ban

Bump fire stock ban atf trump

Nick Leghorn for TTAG

President Trump ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to re-regulate bump fire stocks after the Las Vegas Mandalay Bay shooting. The three-letter agency, which had approved the use of the stocks under the Obama administration, took a second look at the devices and decided that these pieces of plastic are really machine guns.

The new ruling was announced in December. Hundreds of thousands of owners of bump fire stocks then had 90 days to turn them in, destroy them, or…well, those were the only two options.

You had to know that lots of owners of the newly verboten accessories (which were perfectly legal when they bought them) either 1) weren’t paying attention and didn’t know about the change, or 2) knew about it and decided the feds could FOAD.

It’s not clear which category Ajay Dhingra falls into, but in addition to being a prohibited person in possession of firearms, he was found to have a bump stock when Secret Service agents recently came knocking on his door.

By Michael Balsamo, Associated Press

A Texas man is the first person to be charged under a federal ban on bump stocks, devices that allow a semi-automatic firearm to fire rapidly like a machine gun, the Justice Department said Thursday.

Ajay Dhingra, 43, of Houston, came on the radar of the U.S. Secret Service in August after he sent an email to the George W. Bush Foundation asking the former president to “send one of your boys to come and murder me,” according to court records.

Prosecutors allege that Dhingra had previously been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility and was prohibited from owning firearms. When Secret Service agents showed up at his house, Dhingra told them he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, court documents said.

At his home, investigators found a handgun and an AR-15 rifle that had a bump stock attached to it, the documents said. Investigators also found four 100-round magazines.

Dhingra’s case is the first brought by the U.S. Justice Department for violating the nationwide bump stock ban since it took effect in March, under the same federal law that prohibits possessing machine guns. The devices became a focal point of the national gun control debate after they were used by the gunman who killed 58 people and left hundreds of others injured in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting.

Dhingra was indicted on charges that include possessing a machine gun and making false statements to acquire a firearm.

His attorney, David Adler, declined to comment Thursday.


  1. avatar jwm says:

    He was already prohibited. And he waved his own red flag. An outlier at best.

    No doubt another foolish leftist.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Yeah, kinda difficult to spin this story into a “poor guy got trounced by an unfair change in ATF regulation” when he was already a prohibited person and openly dared the SS to come get him.

      Stupid is as stupid does.

      1. avatar A Random Human says:

        The guy has schizophrenia. He doesn’t know what he is doing. He has delusions and paranoia. Nothing to do with political parties nor stupidity. He probably thinks aliens implanted microchips on his organs through his butt and he is a super hero who will save America.

        Schizophrenia makes people say all kinds of delusional stuff that eventually puts themselves or others in danger when it gets worse. I have seen them run around with knives and try to hurt people.

        I once saw an armed man get to the point he lost his mind enough he thought there was ghosts or assassins attempting to murder him in his apartment at night. He started opening fire on them. In reality, he was by himself in his apartment all night freaking out until he was disarmed by police.

        I seen numerous schizophrenic people shot dead by police when they have a psychotic break. The police have no idea how to deal with such crazy people. The government closed down the institutions for these people, thereby they eventually end up living on the streets.

        1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          “Numerous”, huh? You’ve seen them shot and gunned down? I’m calling BS on that, unless you’re a career LEO with years of service under your belt and can substantiate it.

          Doesn’t matter if someone has a screw loose. If he/she calls upon the President to “come send your boys and murder me”, it’s a dumb thing to say and may warrant a response. You think the Secret Service is going to come down on the side of “well, he’s just off his meds, so don’t worry about this criminal record, his guns, or his violent rants.”

        2. avatar ACEV says:

          I’ve seen a ton of lies and bullshit and they’re all in your post. You want to make up anymore things you’ve seen? Sounds like you’re the schizo.

    2. avatar Ginder12 says:

      No doubt an idiot, right wing, lunatic fringe, knuckle dragging troglodyte. As long as we’re casting assumptions.

      1. avatar J Gibbons says:

        Not likely given his hometown and his dislike of GWB. More likely to be on the Demo-communist side of the aisle. Regardless, he’s prohibited and that just demonstrates that more gun laws won’t help.

        1. avatar Jeremy B. says:

          Why do we feel the need to label people that we know nothing about and are just as likely non- political?

    3. avatar Mikial says:

      Exactly. I’m not so sure I feel bad that he got busted.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I am probably with you on that, assuming the videos of him agreeing to a search of his residence are complete. I suspect, though, that they are not. I also suspect that their “visit” to him was not accompanied by a warrant issued for probable cause. My suspicions are amplified by the fact that news reports mentioned neither warrants, probable cause, nor the need for either. Just to begin, in this day and age, there is no conceivable excuse for a confrontation with this guy which is not covered by multiple videos. Are we going to see them, or be assured they even exist? Because if there are none, everything alleged is a lie.

  2. avatar napresto says:

    He sounds like an unsympathetic character, but his attorney should still use this as an opportunity to fight the (totally unconstitutional and nonsensical) bump stock ruling. For the other charges… yeah, he’s probably in pretty deep…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I got $100 right NOW, says the “machine gun” charge will never see a courtroom. Most likely all other charges will be dropped if the mentally defective man can be convinced to plead to that, to begin building a case for it being a “long accepted” limitation on 2A, rather than a very clear violation of 2A. If he won’t plead to it, it will be dropped.

  3. avatar Yehuda Bernstein says:


    “According to court records, Dhingra’s message said to “send one of your boys to come murder me. I want to die by the hands of a white Christian.””

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:


      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        Imagine his disappointment if they had sent female agents of religious and ethnic backgrounds the same as his. I imagine much whimpering and crying would have ensued.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Send a big ass woman to beat him to death with a frozen ham. How about that?

        2. avatar Mikial says:


          I laughed out loud at that one.

    2. avatar Ransom says:

      George Bush foundation?
      If this guy REALLY wanted to die he should have contacted the Clinton foundation and told them he had some interesting stories from his flights on the Lolita Express… ….we’d be reading about his “suicide” right now.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        And Ransom wins “Best Internet comment of the month” award.

        1. avatar Longhaired Redneck says:


  4. avatar Biatec says:

    So his crime was victimless. Congrats to the guys who stopped nothing. Did they raid his house or did he let them in? Well eventually he will be let out again because he is too dangerous to own a gun but will be released back into society and won’t break the law again and get another gun.

    1. avatar Biatec says:

      I am probably being to hard on the people who arrested him. It’s just silly we get proof over and over the prohibited persons list doesn’t work and we say throw him in prison but not for the bumpstock.

      Why not spend all the money we spend on that on mental health help? Also then people wouldn’t be worried about losing their rights if they seek help too.

  5. avatar jwtaylor says:

    “…asking the former president to “send one of your boys to come and murder me,”

    Damn lazy MF demands we do everything for him.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Like I said. Leftist.

    2. avatar Yehuda Bernstein says:


    3. avatar Matthew the Oilman says:

      Bust out laughing 😂😆

    4. avatar Chris T in KY says:


    5. avatar David says:

      Well, while I disagree with the bump stock ruling, the guy was waiving his rights under the Constitution and saving the taxpayers the cost of a trial.

      Contrary to leftist views, bans do not work. Gun controls do not work. Pro-gun supporters see the logic in this while anti-gunners fall back on emotional responses to a perceived problem which may, or more often may not, actually exist.

      The fact is that bans and regulations have been ignored everywhere. Gun (and knife) crimes are rising in England. In Australia, thousands of firearms were turned in AFTER bans were already years in place, the government has no idea how many more have not been turned in, there has been a growing problem with smuggled arm from Indonesia, along with a growing illegal immigrant problem. In New Zealand, where firearm owners stood up and openly refused to comply with a ban, the government has backed off and are looking at other ownership rules. In the USA, bans on semi-automatics, so-called “assault weapons”, and so-called “high capacity magazines” have been ignored in every place they have been instituted. It was no different in 1775 when the British Army was dispatched across Massachusetts to confiscate arms and munitions in the hands of colonists, along with placing Founding Fathers under arrest. The people have spoken and they obviously are supporting CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE in MA, CN, NJ, NY/NYC, CA, WA, etc.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Where did you see he waived any rights?

  6. avatar Miner49er says:

    So he was upset over George bush’s war crimes? He’s a little late, he’ll have to get in line with the rest of the world.

    Meanwhile, don’t look for 2020 to be the salvation of your bump stock, Trump supporters are doing all they can to ensure trump’s continued imperial reign.

    “Four states are poised to cancel their 2020 GOP presidential primaries and caucuses, a move that would cut off oxygen to Donald Trump’s long-shot primary challengers.
    Republican parties in South Carolina, Nevada, Arizona and Kansas are expected to finalize the cancellations in meetings this weekend, according to three GOP officials who are familiar with the plans.”

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Sorta like hillary stealing the bid from bernie?

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        statistically impossible iowan coin flips…

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Please clarify with links, Miner. Are you saying the regional GOP in those state are considering cancellations, or that the States themselves are discussing them? I highly doubt it’s legal for the States to do that. Voter disenfranchisement, and all.

      In a previous comment several days ago, you defended Vlad by saying he always posts links to supporting documentation. Now it’s your turn. Put up or shut up.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Google is your friend, one can Google a couple lines from any quoted text and immediately find the source. If one had done this with my post, they would’ve found this article in politico posted early this morning.


        Apologies graciously accepted, thank you.

        1. avatar I Haz A Smackdown for Miner49er says:

          See, that wasn’t so hard, was it? If you’re going to cut-and-paste plagiarize someone else’s words, have the journalistic integrity to credit the original author or provide the link to the original source.

          It’s called being an adult.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          I smile when people ask for Links for the things I say.
          You should try doing too. It will make you a happier person. And not be so angry all the time.

    3. avatar Dude says:

      The republican primary challengers know they don’t stand a chance, no matter what. It’s about ego, money, and raising their own profile.

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        Unlike Donald Trump who operates on the purest of ideals?

      2. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

        Raising their profile is valid. For future office runs.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          NONE of the pretend “challengers” have a chance in ANY Rep primary ANY year. As kooky as Marianne Williamson

    4. avatar pwrserge says:

      Ah… “war crimes”… Exactly which “war crimes” are you talking about?

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were… found guilty of war crimes. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia…At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council.”

        King Bush the First was much worse, google George HW Bush war crimes for more entertaining info

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          I wish you would have put Malaysia and UN at the top. Then I could have known to ignore this without reading it.

        2. avatar jwtaylor says:

          “…were tried in absentia in Malaysia…At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal…”

          You’re citing a week long “trial” held in absentia in Malasia as some kind of conviction by a real court?

          If you want to be treated seriously, act responsibly. Be better than this.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Tried in absentia in Malaysia? Really? That’s your citation? Way to make yourself irrelevant to any adult discussion.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          So… a “conviction” by parties who had no jurisdictional authority to prosecute anybody for anything. Cute. The UN has no authority period. It is not a state, it has no sovereignty. It certainly doesn’t have the authority to prosecute so much as a jaywalking case.

        5. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          “In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world,” ???
          Of WHAT kind? The kind that no one gives a shit about?…. I found nearly 300 CONVICTIONS stemming from two world wars and over 2000 actually tried by Croatia after the Yugoslav wars… So though you may be unaware that War Crimes trials have occured in the past I can assure you there have been and some EVEN resulted in convictions and long prison sentences for many as well as the death penalty for some.. These were REAL trials in a real court that really had some kind of REAL authority…

        6. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Serge, it’s not even the UN. It’s a made-up little “tribunal” who said that their evidence will then be turned over to the UN. Which they did. The UN dismissed it outright. This is the kind of “proof” that exists from the left. This is the quality of their argument. Children, stamping their feet.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… by that logic, me and a dozen of my buddies could hold a “tribunal” finding Obama guilty of treason and have about the same legal standing.

    5. avatar Keith says:

      It’s very common not to waste taxpayer dollars nor political party funds on primaries for the incumbent party.

    6. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      2020 is not going to solve anything anyway. None of the potential primary challengers are very pro gun or pro freedom, and they are at best a dead heat verses the democraps. So primarying Trump doesn’t look like it will be helpful, and neither does reelecting him. As for the democrats, the only possible positive to electing one of them would be that we get the civil war over with sooner, but most of us really do not want to go through that if at all possible.

      Our choices are a combination shit sandwiches and giant douches. I move we adjourn government completely at all levels and never reconvene it. Government hasn’t done anything except take our rights, take our money, limit and restrict our freedom, and generally fuck up everything it touches. We all know how to treat other people and how to handle those incapable of following traditional anglo saxon common law. We don’t need nannies bossing us around.

    7. avatar MADDMAXX says:

      I’m sure gun owners will fare much better if any one of those POS clowns running for the Dem nomination should somehow manage to get elected since everything they are proposing to drop on the heads of the American people make so much more sense (if you are a fucking communist or a sheep that needs to be told everything and have your entire life mapped out for you)..

    8. avatar Hank says:

      I know it’s popular to call Bush a war criminal, but he’s really not. Bush was given full authority to invade Iraq by an overwhelming majority of congress, and bi partisan at that. Call the war a blunder all you want, but it wasn’t a war crime.

    9. avatar UpInArms says:

      It’s been done before. And not just by Republicans. The Democrats cancelled primaries in a number of states during the Clinton and Obama administrations.

      Primaries are not open elections. They are by and for the parties, and if they want to cancel them, it’s entirely their call. Bad optics, maybe, but not illegal and not out of the ordinary.

    10. avatar LarryinTX says:

      My bump stock is just fine, I am not even hiding it.

  7. The ACLU should live up to their name by defending him, but the so-called “American Civil Liberties Union” only knows how to ten like this: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
    (They’re allergic to the number 2)

    1. avatar HOW_TERRIBLE says:

      Actually you can omit the 3rd amendment as well. There as never ever been a single major legal case centered around a third amendment issue.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        Fun fact: there was exactly one case and I’m not sure if it counts as major, except for the fact that it’s the only one. Exact details are escaping me but there was a prison guard strike and the state moved the national guard into the prison to keep the prison running. The prisoners filed a 3rd amendment lawsuit based on the guards being quartered in what they claimed was their home. The suit was not successful.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Quartered in their home? Eric, that sounds like a joke!

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          @LarryinTX I know, right? Pardon me for not googling it before but here is the case in all its glory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey

    2. avatar Stir-fried Panda says:

      The ACLU recently backed the NRA in their war with Cuomo and the City of New York. Not sure how you missed that.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        The ACLU backed them on 1st amendment grounds, not 2nd. Try again.

  8. avatar enuf says:

    “Mr. Dhingra faces four felony gun charges, including possession of the bump stock, possession of firearms and ammunition by someone who had been committed to a mental institution, and two counts of making false statements about his mental health history when he bought the guns from Houston-area dealers. ”

    So it didn’t matter what gun or gun parts he owned he was a prohibited possessor who committed fraud to obtain firearms.

    The Slide Fire stock is bullshit, the rest is not.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      “The Slide Fire stock is bullshit, the rest is not”

      Saw a post on reddit theorizing that they intentionally chose this guy as an unsympathetic defendant with which to validate the bump stock reclassification without much pushback.

      1. avatar Yehuda Bernstein says:

        and that is exactly the underlying basis of US v. Miller.

        The trial judge, Judge Hiram Heartsill Ragon, (an FDR appointee, who was in favor of banning all handguns and restricting all other firearms) refused to accept a guilty plea by Miller and threw the case out on a 2nd Amendment challenge (Federal District court) so it could be appealed directly to the Supreme Court (that is an option, bypassing Circuit court appeals).

        “”Before he became a judge, Ragon represented the Fifth District of Arkansas in Congress from 1923 to 1933.111 As a congressman, he was a vocal advocate of federal gun control. In 1924, Ragon introduced an unsuccessful bill prohibiting the importation of guns in violation of state law,112 and vigorously supported another bill prohibiting the mailing of most pistols, which eventually passed in 1927.113Basically, Ragon wanted to prohibit firearms used by criminals, including pistols.114 “I want to say that I am unequivocally opposed to pistols in any connection whatever. If you want something in the home for defense, there is the shotgun and the rifle, but a pistol is primarily for the purpose of killing somebody.”115 And he specifically dismissed Second Amendment objections to federal gun control. “I cannot see that violence to the Constitution which my friend from Texas sees in this bill.”116 If Arkansas could prohibit pistols, so could the United States.11”

        1. avatar Anymouse says:

          Unlike Miller, there would be representation and amicus briefs against the ban. It doesn’t matter if the defendant is a scum bag. They can vacate the ban regulation while leaving convictions on place for possession by a prohibited person and the other charges.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      …not exactly the best choice for a test case….

  9. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

    Actually Trump didn’t order the “re-classification” after the Las Vegas murders where a bump stock was actually used. He ordered it after Parkland which had absolutely nothing to do with bump stocks.

    I’m a Trump fan but gotta be honest, I’m not sure how the math worked on that. It’s as if he had the ban in his mind and he felt like he had to appease somebody.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Trump is no friend to gun owners or the Second Amendment. He does what he does because he thinks he will benefit in ways that matter to him personally. That’s it, totally amoral, if he thought he’d get votes and public acclaim for it he’d be proposing anti-gun laws “bigly”.

    2. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      and he really does not like silencers, either…
      and they are much more expensive…especially adding in a $200 tax stamp for each one

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I have not completely thought thru what I may do if they come for my SBR or my suppressor. Fact is, I knew that was a possibility when I went thru the process, of course they know I have them. I submitted to a registry, which I would never do otherwise. Neither should you! I did, of course, sell my 9″ .300 blk upper years ago, forget the lady’s name, so I guess I can remove the aftermarket trigger, the collapsible stock, etc, and turn in the bare lower. The suppressor I might lose.

    3. avatar MtnDewey says:

      ugh….ok so he basically outed himself, got caught and was taken in to custody doing everything illegally…however, the bump stock ban is bullshit as is every infringement against the 2nd. We the people need to get out in the streets and peacefully protest every weekend( most of us work so we cant do weekdays like antifa). Do not buy a silencer, it allows the BATFE into your home anytime they want, do not get your FFL from home, same thing. be smart. if you own a bump stock….well that’s your business in my opinion.

  10. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    he is nothing but a diaper-head looking for a fight , i feel that the batf can oblige him without much problem.. just one more nut-case that obummer imported to stir crap and cause more anti-gun histeria.

  11. avatar Kyle says:

    Good to know that Making false statements is illegal for some people.

    Perhaps someday it will be illegal for the “special important people” too. So far, seems like if your a democrat in good standing you kinda dont have to worry about such silly little laws.

  12. avatar Don from CT says:

    I can’t wait for a court case.

    The problem is not that they chose to regulate the product.

    The problem is that it was retroactive after the manufacturer got an explicit OK. In other words its unconstitutional with respect to the “taking” clause under the bill of rights. The Government has taken or forced you to destroy property which you purchased legally, with no compensation.

    Clearly unconstitutional.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      There’s also the point that the regulation is beyond the definitoon in the written law. Bump firing, whether with a specialized stock or not, manually activates the trigger for each shot fired.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Think THAT is unconstitutional? How about an unelected bureaucrat changes a rule in an ATF instruction manual, and you can go to prison for 10 years, and owe a $250,000 fine for violating that shiny new “rule”. Wouldn’t you think it would take the efforts of, say, 536 people before such a punishment would be possible? Like, the House, the Senate, and the President?

  13. avatar Rick the Bear says:

    He’s lucky he’s not in the People’s Republik of MA.

    Life sentence for a bump stock, buddy boy. More than murder 2.

  14. avatar Don from CT says:

    This situation exposes Trump’s tyrannical streak.

    After the uproar over bump stocks when they were “discovered” by the mainstream media in 2015, Obama had his justice department look into banning them.

    They reported back to him that given the current state of the law, they could not be banned.

    Obama did nothing.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Obama allowed bump stocks because he was a constitutional law scholar and respected the constitution. He signed the bill allowing concealed carry in national Forests and lands administered by the BLM, expanding gun rights onto hundreds of thousands of acres of federal lands.

      Trump directed his DOJ to ban bump stocks because he thought it would be good for him politically to appear anti-gun.
      Trump will do whatever, say whatever he thinks they want to hear, in order to stay in power and acquire more wealth.

      After all, he’s probably spending big bucks to keep the details of his Bromance with Jeffrey Epstein secret.

      1. avatar MADDMAXX says:

        Obama allowed bump stocks because he was a constitutional law scholar and respected the constitution.
        I have a 16 year old Niece that is more of a Constitutional scholar than Obama, who is not only weak in knowledge but holds what he DOES know of the Constitution in utter contempt just as he still holds the United States and most American citizens…
        Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution. (SCHOLAR?)
        President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a “lawyer”. He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application.

      2. avatar Hydguy says:

        Obozo didn’t sign the law requiring National Parks to abide by state laws in regards to CCW. That happened under GWB.
        Stop fellating Obozo.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “A bill that Obama signed in May permits licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as state law allows it. The new law, which takes effect in February, will replace rules from the Reagan administration that generally require that guns in national parks be locked or stored in a glove compartment or trunk.

          The Democratic-controlled Congress passed the less restrictive measure with bipartisan support after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., inserted it into Obama-backed legislation imposing new restrictions on credit card companies. Democratic leaders decided not to challenge Coburn, and Obama signed the gun measure without comment.”

          So a democratically controlled Congress send a bill to the president, and President Barack Hussein Obama signed the bill into law, authorizing American citizens to carry firearms on hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land.
          So a democratically controlled Congress Senate Bill to the president, and President Barack Hussein Obama signed the bill into law, authorizing American citizens to carry firearms on hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land.

          Of course, right wing POTG want to ignore reality and live in a fantasy land where Democrat bad, Republican good.

          How’s that working out for you with your bump stocks, why don’t we just take the guns and worry about the courts later, as republican president Trump says.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Hydy, we were talking politics but now you bring interracial Homoerotic oral sex into the discussion?

          Well, I guess I really don’t want to know what pictures you’re seeing in your head when you say things like that, that’s just weird.

          Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course.

      3. avatar Doubleace says:

        Do you ever shut up? You should you know, Its better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

  15. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    I’m curious to see how this works out. I would argue that as per definition of the law Trump can’t do it but it has to be an act of Congress since bump stocks are within the letter of the GCA of 68 and the NFA of 34 if not the spirit thereof. That said, I also think it’s dangerous to the losing party and could be used as a broader judgement to rule in executive power or extend it out greatly which would be horrifying. That said supposedly Kavanaugh is very anti-chevron and this would be largely based on the principles if not the ruling its self.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Since he’s already a prohibited possessor, they might just bust him on that slam dunk charge, drop the bump stock charge, and not risk a judicial ruling on their specious regulatory re-imagination of the law. Then they can eat their cake and have it, too; until someone else challenges it, of course.

  16. avatar Jonathan Long says:

    so really all they have done is given proof that if you still own a bumpstock you may as well make it full-fun because you will be punished the same either way.

  17. avatar Hydguy says:

    Not sure how BATFE is a ‘3 letter agency’. Using common core math to figure that out?

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      Mostly use ATF…
      like CBP is actually BCBP…Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
      true story, bra
      just call it an alphabet agency and be done…

  18. avatar CLarson says:

    Maybe we don’t need red flags, maybe the alphabet agencies should just check their email inboxes more. The nutters don’t seem shy about making their views known.

  19. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    Typically sensational reporting … “found four 100-round magazines.”

    100 round mags aren’t illegal in Texas, so what? They can name any legal product, but this implies he had scary murder mags oh no!

    “Police discovered he had four black tires on his truck. All terrain ones. And a case of beer in the garage. And a half eaten piece of pizza on the counter. He was known to prefer heavy metal over country and drove a dirty diesel pickup instead of a hybrid.”

    Even if we keep adding difficult to enforce bans where most opt to not comply, they may not go door to door but will nail you or use as leverage when they bust you for other crimes, domestic abuse, traffic violations, illegal drugs, whatever.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Well, most reasonable citizens in the United States who aren’t gun owners cannot fathom why anyone would want a 100 round magazine.

      They really don’t see a need for a 100 round magazine on the target range, your ammo is sitting right there on the bench. And because most states limit magazine capacity for hunting to three rounds, they don’t understand why you would want a 100 round magazine for hunting as well.

      1. avatar Hydguy says:

        Huh, last I checked, the 2A is located in the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.
        You should recheck your Constitution. Your version might be broken.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        Tribunal boy. The 3 round limit for hunting usually applies to shotguns and started as a Federal water fowl ruling. Shotguns.

        You really are ignorant about guns and legal issues, ain’t cha.

      3. avatar Miner49er says:

        I guess the point of my comment went over your head.

        Most reasonable citizens do not see any reason a normal person would want a 100 round magazine for their AR 15.

        They don’t see a need for a 100 round magazine when target shooting and they don’t see a need for a 100 round magazine when hunting. They don’t see a need for a 100 round magazine when defending one’s home.

        The constitution has nothing to do with the issue of reasonable citizens not seeing the need for a 100 round magazine for the AR 15, other than someone wanting the capability to kill many humans quickly.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          The over whelming majority of reasonable citizens see no problem with putting leftists in labor camps.

          See, I can play that weasel word game too.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          I don’t know of any 150rd magazine for AR. Or belt fed

        3. avatar Doubleace says:

          Its not about needs numb nuts, its about rights. Take one right, then it gets easier to take more rights. It isn’t about what some squirrelly ass politician thinks is right.

  20. avatar GS650G says:

    What’s with people asking cops to kill them? He had a gun he could use on himself rather than ask a cop to shoot him.

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      for some…suicide is forbidden…

  21. avatar NORDNEG says:

    I have no sympathy for crazies with guns, especially after they know their not supposed to have them,,,
    They cause nothing but problems for the law abiding people,,,
    Of course it’s the Government that drives people CRAZY,,, what to do ? What to do ???

  22. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    the ACLU fought and got the terror watch list called unconstitutional…but leftists want a list of gun owners and prohibited persons…both of which would also be filled with errors…easy to get on but nearly impossible to get off…etc etc

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      The ACLU would never help get lists of gun owners cleaned up, nor would they object to all gun owners automatically being treated as terrorists. They fought the terror watch list not because it is unconstitutional (though it probably is), but because it affected certain sacred “victim” castes on the Progressive stack, and we can’t have that.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    TTAG makes a meaningless post about a prohibited crazy and we’re supposed to care?!? I don’t.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      May be a good illustration of how the ban will be used, specifically as an add-on in cases in which they take down someone for other reasons.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        doesn’t seem they’re actively looking for these things…but “add-on” charges are SOP…..

  24. avatar A Random Human says:

    @Guesty McGuesterson

    I literally explained people with schizophrenia can be or are dangerous. They have attacked people. When they have a mental break it can lead to violence. They are not dumb, they are crazy. That is a major difference. Dumb people don’t necessarily have to be put into an institution for mental health problems. People with schizophrenia eventually need to be monitored by professionals. Drugs will make their delusions worse. Living on the street allows them to constantly get money to buy more drugs and it exposes everyone to their problems.

    If this guy is treated like a criminal he could eventually get out of prison and make his way back to the “wild” with the rest of us. We can’t murder him to deal with the problem like Hitler did. We can only put him in a mental health facility where he can live away from us and danger.

    For educational purposes. This was a very smart man [Terry A. Davis] who deteriorated because of his mental issue and died homeless. Warning strong language and schizophrenic behavior:

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      So where did you get the video of our friend Sergei?

      Seriously, thanks for sharing, these folks are out there on the street among us every day.
      We all need to be aware that the individuals we see in public may not have it quite all together.

      I did find it interesting that he was an advisor to George Bush, that could explain that whole Iraq war debacle.

      But in his defense, I would like to point out, he did take the time to return the shopping cart to the store.

      1. avatar Hydguy says:

        Miner, why are all your posts filled with stupidity? I have yet to see one that isn’t full of factual errors, or wild assumptions about things that don’t matter in regards to the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

        Are you just a low grade troll, or are you actually that stupid? I’m leaning towards the latter.

      2. avatar A Random Human says:

        I think there is a schizophrenic man in Houston that shot a person. He claims he was being attacked by a group of people when he shot him in self defense. I am not sure he has schizophrenia, but he sure sounds like it (unfortunately). I hope he doesn’t have mental health issues. At least the police have taken his gun away after the shooting and won’t give it back to him yet.

        People with schizophrenia can appear very normal for a long time. When they get older it becomes more obvious as it gets worse. They can pass a mental health evaluation, buy a gun and get a CCW when they are younger. Their parents should know more about them than the government could ever figure out before it’s too late. If the family doesn’t warn people, they could become violent or get themselves hurt in the future.

        There are a lot of schizophrenics on Youtube that believe in Q and deep state conspiracies. It makes me sad when I see it. At first I thought they were being dumb and hopeful, eventually I realized they’re not dumb, they’re simply schizophrenics. I didn’t know they let mentally ill people post videos on Youtube and expose themselves to manipulators that can make them commit violence. Maybe it’s beneficial for them to post videos, but someone has to watch over them just in case.

        I really hope he isn’t schizophrenic. He seems like a very nice man:

      3. avatar A Random Human says:

        Not all people with schizophrenia are bad or violent people. Some people are very nice, peaceful and friendly. But you have to be careful and kind because they don’t react like you do. You can’t treat them like you treat others, their brains don’t work normally. Most people can’t understand them nor know how to deal with them.

        Being a nice and friendly human is always a good idea in life. You don’t want to make yourself a target. You never know what someone is planning. Make yourself a friend not an enemy.

  25. avatar Alan says:

    In the case of an ordinary law abiding citizen caught up in this bullshit, which this man does not seem to be, I would dearly love to be part of the trial jury hearing the case.

  26. avatar Hannibal says:

    Not surprising that the first case would be a tack on charge. I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up settling and dropping that charge to avoid judges looking too hard at it when they have a slam dunk on the prohibited person rap.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I suspect you have it backwards, they will drop all the other charges and give a light penalty if he pleads guilty to that particular one, to present it as reasonable, “look, this guy pled guilty! It must be reasonable and constitutional!”

  27. avatar GEORGE BILL says:

    Sounds like he shouldn’t have a gun to begin with?

  28. avatar Wally1 says:

    I still don’t see the need for a bumpstock, not that it should be illegal, however with a little training and trigger control you can rock your AR using just a stiff finger. Practice got me mastering it in about 1/2 hour.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Wally, that’s always been the case and people who have true firearms experience realized that years ago. We’ve all been holding the forearm, pushing it forward, letting the rifle rock, and have a little fun at the range.

      But a bunch of whiny, entitled newbies who couldn’t quite get the hang of it just had to have a piece of plastic prosthetic when a little patience and trigger control would do it.
      They need to just STFU about their training wheels before we lose more rights because the troglodytes gets John Q Public all upset.

  29. avatar borg says:

    It would be ironic if the case caused the court to rule that the ATF is violating law as written by regulating an item that they are not legally allowed to regulate and misidentifying an item as automatic when it does not meet the legal definition.

  30. avatar borg says:

    Could the federal government be forced to pay millions of damages to those harmed by illegally banning an item in violation of specific federal law? Could the Bump Stock manufacturers compensated for financial loss due to the illegal ban? Could sellers get compensated for financial harm due to the illegal ban.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Legally, the distinction for that comes down to whether the government is exercising eminent domain, in which case it’s a “taking” and they have to pay just compensation, or they’re exercising so-called “police power.” Most regulatory actions that screw people out of money, inventory, property value, etc. registers as police power. So no money is paid out.

      Any of a dozen lawyers in readership attendance here can explain that more thoroughly and accurately than I did, I’m sure, but the bottom line is going to be basically the same.

    2. avatar Doubleace says:

      Federal government = taxpayers!

  31. avatar john d says:

    its an easy case for them to set a legal president. because we all know it’s absolutely illegal what they did. but because this guy is a crazy hell get convicted and that will give them the latitude to cone after you.

  32. avatar George Washington says:

    Let’s just say this guy DEFINITELY shouldn’t have firearms… THAT SAID, A BUMP STOCK SHOULDN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HIS CHARGES…
    You know the government has been infiltrated when they start banning FKN PLASTIC PIECES AND CALLING THEM MACHINE GUNS….
    Unfortunately there’s too many FUDDS involved… These people only think of themselves…. Which is THE WHOLE PROBLEM… SELF CENTERED AMERICANS WHO WON’T STAND UP/WITH THEIR BREATHEREN!

  33. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Ahhh……Houston Man………making a very strong showing in the Dumbass of the Week race. Regular readers will note that Florida Man usually dominates this event, but there’s no denying the impressively, monumentally stupid performance Houston Man has put in here. Play on, player. Have fun in prison.

  34. avatar Joe mama says:

    Lmfao it’s boogaloo time bois *laughs in full auto* I’m sorry but not one fuck is going to enter my house and take my weapons.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email