US judge rules in favour of Trump administration on “Bump stocks” ban

A federal judge gave the Trump administration the go-ahead on Monday to ban "bump stocks" - rapid-fire gun attachments used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history - in a defeat for firearms rights advocates.

"None of the plaintiffs' challenges merit preliminary injunctive relief," Washington-based District Judge Dabney Friedrich wrote in the ruling.

When the rule takes effect as scheduled on March 26, bump stock owners will have to turn in or destroy the attachments, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire like machine guns with a single pull of the trigger.

President Donald Trump had pledged to ban the devices soon after a gunman used them to shoot and kill 58 people at a country music festival in Las Vegas in October 2017.

The U.S. Department of Justice had announced on December 18 that the ban would be taking effect.

Immediately after the Trump administration announced the ban, a challenge appeared from the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation, which claimed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and then-acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker had overstepped their authority.

It was more of a procedural challenge than a Second Amendment invocation, based on the fact that the ATF once maintained only certain bump stocks should be illegal but changed its stance at the president’s urging.

Friedrich rejected the attempt in a 64-page decision late Monday. Friedrich, a Trump appointee, said it was “reasonable” of the ATF to decide, as it did, that a bump stock does what a machine-gun does. Machine-guns are illegal under federal law, so bump stocks can also be banned.

“That this decision marked a reversal of ATF’s previous interpretation [of the meaning of bump stock] is not a basis for invalidating the rule, because ATF’s current interpretation is lawful and ATF adequately explained the change in interpretation,” the judge said.

Friedrich also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Trump had unconstitutionally appointed Whitaker.