FICG Files Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction Challenging ATF’s Final Rule on Bumpstocks

Earlier today, the Department of Justice released the approved Final Rule on bumpstocks. As was expected, the Rule alters the definition of the term “machine gun” (in the regulations pertaining to the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act) to include the following language

* * * For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions. The term “machine gun” includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.

As a result, Damien Guedes backed by institutional plaintiffs Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Firearms Policy Foundation, and the Madison Society Foundation, Inc., represented by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group, filed suit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Acting ATF Director Thomas E. Brandon, purported Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, and the United States of America seeking a preliminary injunction.

Among other things, the suit alleges that Matthew Whitaker lacks the authority to implement a final rule, challenges the ATF’s violations of the Administrative Procedures Act, and argues that ATF usurped its authority by rewriting the definition to a term that Congress had clearly defined. For an overview of the lawsuit, see BuzzFeed’s comprehensive article – Gun Rights Activists Are Already Suing Over Trump’s Bump Stock Ban.

Individuals wishing to donate to the legal challenge may do so by contributing to the fund.

If your rights have been violated by a federal administrative agency during a rulemaking proceeding or you want to file a comment in support or opposition to a notice of proposed rulemaking, contact Firearms Industry Consulting Group today to discuss YOUR rights and legal options.


Firearms Industry Consulting Group® (FICG®) is a registered trademark and division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., with rights and permissions granted to Prince Law Offices, P.C. to use in this article.

5 thoughts on “FICG Files Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction Challenging ATF’s Final Rule on Bumpstocks

  1. No government agency, including the A.T.F. has the power to tell the American people what they can and cannot protect themselves with without directly infringing upon the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. And to try or do so is a direct act of war against “WE THE PEOPLE” of the United States of America…


  2. So if all such devices must destroyed within 90 days unless owners want to be felons, what good would donating do to fight the cause. Even if you succeed they will already be gone?


  3. What about challenges to their ” Jurisdiction ” and very method by which BATF was created ?

    ” Trump is making criminals out of Millions of law abiding gun owners , violating his Oath to Uphold and DEFEND The Constitution by playing ” word games ” with A.T.F.By the way , BATF …. Lacks JURISDICTION …. so go pound sand with the N.R.A. !!” The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, has no venue or jurisdiction within the borders of any of the 50 States of the united States of America, except in pursuit of an importer of contraband alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, who failed to pay the TAX on those items. As proof, refer to the July 30, 1993 ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1 F.3d 1511; 1993 U.S. App. Lexis 19747, where the court ruled in United States v. D.J. Vollmer & Co. that “the B.A.T.F. has jurisdiction over the first sale of a firearm imported to the country, but they don’t have jurisdiction over subsequent sales.” — ( From BATF – IRS Criminal Fraud by Bill Cooper + Dan Meador )


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s