Jordan Derrick—better known online as Dugan Ashley from the pioneering gun channel CarniK Con—made headlines again in May 2026. This time, it wasn’t for reloading tips or firearms humor. Federal authorities arrested the 40-year-old Missouri man on charges related to manufacturing explosives without a license, unlawful possession of an unregistered destructive device, and distributing information on how to make them.
The case has sparked heated debate in firearms, reloading, and chemistry communities. Supporters see it as a troubling First Amendment test case, while prosecutors tie his videos to real-world incidents, including the 2025 New Orleans Bourbon Street attack.
From CarniK Con Fame to Chemistry Content
Dugan Ashley built a reputation years ago as one of the early successful “guntubers.” His CarniK Con channel delivered entertaining, technical firearms content before he stepped away in 2015. He later returned with podcasts and other projects.
In September 2023, Derrick launched new content under the Dugan Ashley handle. This time, he focused on explosives chemistry—posting step-by-step videos on platforms like YouTube, Odysee, OnlyFans, and Patreon. He covered compounds such as:
- HMTD
- RDX
- PETN
- TNT
- Various detonators and precursors
He reportedly earned around $1,300 from supporters, with messages like “I promise to turn your dollars into pressure waves.”
The Bourbon Street Connection and Other Incidents
Federal affidavits allege that Shamsud-Din Bahar Jabbar downloaded several of Derrick’s videos before the January 1, 2025, New Orleans attack. Jabbar killed 14 people in a truck-ramming assault and planted coolers with explosives that failed to detonate. Investigators found the devices chemically consistent with instructions from Derrick’s tutorials.
Authorities also linked Derrick’s content to a May 2025 explosion at a private residence in Odessa, Missouri. The occupant reportedly told investigators he followed the videos to make a “big firework.”
Derrick faces up to 10 years each on the manufacturing and possession charges, and up to 20 years on the distribution count under 18 U.S.C. § 842(p). That statute targets teaching or sharing explosives info with intent or knowledge that it will be used for violent federal crimes.
Defense Perspectives and First Amendment Concerns
Many in the community argue the charges stretch the law. Derrick’s videos were scientific and instructional, not direct calls to violence. Critics note that similar information has long existed in books like The Anarchist Cookbook, still widely available.
Supporters highlight that proving “intent” or specific “knowledge” of criminal use will be difficult. Derrick had no known direct contact with Jabbar, and his content wasn’t monetized heavily. Some view the “engaging in the business” charge as particularly novel, given the lack of significant profit.
Derrick, an Army veteran and former combat engineer with multiple sclerosis, has a family. A GiveSendGo campaign for his legal defense has raised tens of thousands, with costs potentially reaching six figures for a full trial.
Recent updates from court hearings (including a bond denial) show community support remains strong, with friends and family attending proceedings.
Why This Case Matters
This situation sits at the intersection of:
- Free speech
- Online information
- Public safety
- Explosives regulation
Chemistry tutorials have existed for decades in textbooks, libraries, and now video form. Platforms like NileRed and others demonstrate reactions without issue. The question becomes: Where does education cross into liability when someone misuses the knowledge?
Prosecutors emphasize the real harm linked to the videos. Defenders worry this could set a precedent for prosecuting creators whose content gets twisted by bad actors—potentially chilling legitimate technical discussion.
Dugan Ashley’s story resonates because many remember his early CarniK Con work fondly. Whether you view him as a reckless instructor or a victim of selective prosecution, the case raises uncomfortable questions about responsibility in the digital age.
Information wants to be free—until it isn’t. And when federal agents knock, the line between protected speech and prosecutable material gets tested in court.
