{"id":169,"date":"2019-02-26T15:39:00","date_gmt":"2019-02-26T15:39:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/2019\/02\/26\/district-court-denies-tro-in-bump-stock\/"},"modified":"2019-08-16T18:29:56","modified_gmt":"2019-08-16T18:29:56","slug":"district-court-denies-tro-in-bump-stock","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/?p=169","title":{"rendered":"District Court Denies TRO In Bump Stock Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class='__iawmlf-post-loop-links' style='display:none;' data-iawmlf-post-links='[{&quot;id&quot;:6427,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/assets.nationbuilder.com\\\/firearmspolicycoalition\\\/pages\\\/5186\\\/attachments\\\/original\\\/1551148203\\\/27-memo.pdf?1551148203&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;},{&quot;id&quot;:6428,&quot;href&quot;:&quot;https:\\\/\\\/www.firearmspolicy.org\\\/joint_statement_on_federal_court_ruling_bumpstocks&quot;,&quot;archived_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;redirect_href&quot;:&quot;&quot;,&quot;checks&quot;:[],&quot;broken&quot;:false,&quot;last_checked&quot;:null,&quot;process&quot;:&quot;done&quot;}]'><\/div>\n<p>\nJudge Dabney Friedrich of the US District Court for the District of Columbia turned down a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the Trump Administration\u2019s bump stock ban from going into effect. This ruling impacts a few of the bump stock ban challenges including Guedes, FPC v. Whitaker, and Codrea v. Barr.<\/p>\n<p>In his <a href=\"https:\/\/assets.nationbuilder.com\/firearmspolicycoalition\/pages\/5186\/attachments\/original\/1551148203\/27-memo.pdf?1551148203\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ruling<\/a> Judge Friedrich said that the BATFE was entitled to Chevron deference allowing it to redefine the actual meaning of words.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"tr_bq\"><p>\n<i>Most of the plaintiffs\u2019 administrative law challenges are foreclosed by the Chevron doctrine, which permits an agency to reasonably define undefined statutory terms. See Chevron v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Here, Congress defined \u201cmachinegun\u201d in the NFA to include devices that permit a firearm to shoot \u201cautomatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger,\u201d 26 U.S.C. \u00a7 5845(b), but it did not further define the terms \u201csingle function of the trigger\u201d or \u201cautomatically.\u201d Because both terms are ambiguous, ATF was permitted to reasonably interpret them, and in light of their ordinary<br \/>\nmeaning, it was reasonable for ATF to interpret \u201csingle function of the trigger\u201d to mean \u201csingle pull of the trigger and analogous motions\u201d and \u201cautomatically\u201d to mean \u201cas the result of a self- acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single pull of the trigger.\u201d ATF also reasonably applied these definitions when it concluded that bump stocks permit a shooter to discharge multiple rounds automatically with a single function of the trigger. That this decision marked a reversal of ATF\u2019s previous interpretation is not a basis for invalidating the rule because ATF\u2019s current interpretation is lawful and ATF adequately explained the change in interpretation.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The plaintiffs have already said that they plan to appeal this to the DC Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n<p>You can read the reaction of the plaintiffs in this joint <a href=\"https:\/\/www.firearmspolicy.org\/joint_statement_on_federal_court_ruling_bumpstocks\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">statement<\/a> by the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation.<\/p>\n<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Judge Dabney Friedrich of the US District Court for the District of Columbia turned down a motion for a&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[375,339,397,341],"class_list":["post-169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-bumpstock-ban","tag-codrea-v-barr","tag-firearms-policy-coalition-v-whitaker","tag-guedes-et-al-v-batfe-et-al"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=169"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11716,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169\/revisions\/11716"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/onlygunsandmoney.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}