"Two for one" is usually something that sounds like a pretty good deal. My wife tends to prefer that kind of thing when she goes grocery shopping because, well, it's two for the price of one.

But there's a time when that's not a good deal. That's when you get two charges for a single firearm.

See, back in February, a man was charged with having an illegal short-barreled rifle because he had a CZ Scorpion with a pistol brace on it. This was, of course, after the pistol brace rule went into effect, but many asked that the Department of Justice drop the charges. After all, it's a controversial Biden-era rule that many expect the Trump administration to overturn sooner or later.

I missed this one at the time--sorry, folks, I do my best, but some things slip through the cracks--but I'd have joined the chorus on that one.

Well, not only did that not happen, it actually got stupider.

This case is actually getting worse...

Many of y'all will remember that in early March President Trump's DOJ charged a man who was in possession of this braced CZ Scorpion with possession of a short barrel rifle (SBR).

After those charges were filed, GOA & FRAC (maybe… pic.twitter.com/3kzbPf9z4G

— Mrgunsngear (@Mrgunsngear) April 13, 2025

Post continues:

After those charges were filed, GOA & FRAC (maybe others...) petitioned the DOJ to remove the charge.    

Well, they did the opposite and NOW they're charging him with possession of a SBR AND a unlawful handgun for the same gun.  So, they're now saying this gun is BOTH a SBR and a pistol which is obviously impossible.    

Share this everywhere so hopefully it gets the attention of someone high enough up in DOJ to make this nonsense stop 

#PamBondi #trump #DOJ #2nd

So we have a single firearm that's both an SBR and an illegal pistol?

How?

Don't get me wrong, the issue is apparently that he was carrying a pistol without a license, which shouldn't be illegal in the first place, but it is, so I get that there's a difference in the types of charges we're looking at here.

But if they're calling it an illegal pistol, they're acknowledging that it's a pistol, not an SBR, right?

How in the world can you make the case that he had an illegal pistol and had an illegal SBR for the same gun?

The kick in the butt is that I can see the legal distortions that will probably happen, arguing that because of nature of the firearm in question, it's able to be Schrodinger's firearm, where it's a rifle sometimes and a pistol others, and it's only defined when charges are applied.

This is insane, and I expected better out of the Trump administration.

No, I didn't expect better out of Bondi, but I hoped her working for Trump rather than her own re-election would temper some of her anti-gun enthusiasm. So far, she's done far better than I ever expected from her, but this is a stark reminder that we've got a long way to go. That she has a very long way to go.