Latest Lawsuit Against Trump Bump Stock Ban Seeks to Open ATF Registry

Attorney Stephen Stamboulieh has filed a lawsuit in conjunction with gun writer David Codrea and two others against President Trump’s unconstitutional bump stock ban. Stamboulieh is the man behind a number of prominent gun rights cases such as Hawaii’s open carry lawsuit, Young v. Hawaii.

That makes four lawsuits in the works so far. Stamboulieh’s, two involving Adam Kraut and the Firearms Policy Coalition (one challenging the regulation and another challenging the acting AG’s authority to sign the new rule), and of course one from Gun Owners of America.

The NRA is still nowhere to be found in this fight. The only thing they’ve done is release a statement saying that they’re now somewhat, maybe, possibly against the ban after they were originally for it… twice.

In the complaint, Stamboulieh takes a similar tack against the acting AG’s authority.

Defendant acting Attorney General Whitaker’s appointment violated
28 USC § 508(a) as he was not the Deputy Attorney General when Attorney General Sessions resigned. 85.

Acting Attorney General Whitaker signed the Final Rule, and because his appointment is unlawful under § 508(a), the Final Rule is of no force and effect because acting Attorney General Whitaker has no authority to exercise the powers of the office he purports to hold.

Additionally, he points that there there has been at least one case where a the registry has been opened after the May 1986 deadline.

If the rule is allowed to be implemented, notions of fair play and justice demand that the Attorney General allow for an amnesty so as to register these devices as machine guns under the National Firearms Act. 18 U.S.C. §922(o)would allow the ATF to process these amnesty registrations “under the authority of” clause of §922(o). At least one machine gun was allowed to be registered after the May 19, 1986 cutoff in §922(o), and that proof was submitted to the ATF in the comment provided.

Again, as a NRA life member, I ask, where is their lawsuit? I understand that it takes time to prepare one, but they haven’t announced that they intend to file one. GOA gave advanced notice of their intention to file. Stamboulieh and Kraut did, too. We’ll be watching.



  1. avatar rdsii64 says:

    The GOA took action. The NRA asked me for money again. Can you guess where my future financial contributions are going?

    1. avatar David Walters says:

      I can’t comment on anyone else’s experience is with the NRA. But mine was completely negative and predatory.

      By playing on my allegiance to the 2nd Amendment they delivered virtually nothing that they promised to me for joining, including the folder they promised with a new membership that turned out to be not much larger than a postage stamp.

  2. avatar Yarbles m says:

    Game ain’t over YET.

    Ignorant NRA bashing won’t help anyone or anything.

    1. avatar Dev says:

      Ignorant NRA bashing?? Seriously??? They haven’t done ANYTHING to stop this, in fact they originally released a statement SUPPORTING REGULATIONS on bump stocks in 2017. The only person showing ignorance here is you.

      The NRA has not made a strong statement supporting our rights but for the two weeks before my membership ran out I was getting upwards of five emails each day reminding me of that fact and asking for money and donations. I let my membership lapse while I think about rejoining down the road.

      1. avatar Brian says:

        From the looks of it, the NRA is supporting these red flag laws now, too.

        And the only way I see the NRA filing a lawsuit against this ban is if it looks like the GOA and the others are going to win their cases. If it looks like they will win, the NRA will file a similarly worded lawsuit just before a verdict is reached, then they’ll claim victoly when the lawsuits win.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Yes Ignorant NRA bashing

        1. avatar supergun says:

          If the NRA is weak in attacking this unlawful ban, then maybe they should hear some bashing. Many times, bashing leads to action. If we keep quite like good little boys,,,then it falls on us.

        2. avatar HoundDogDave says:

          If you knew your mechanic was putting a little sugar in your gas tank every time they changed your oil just to make sure you needed to come back to them for more expensive work later down the road would you continue to let them for work on your car? I’ve been an NRA member for years and when my current membership expires in 4 years I will not renew. I’ve earned the right to complain about how the NRA has been and is now run. Everyone got on board to boycott Dick’s when they turned on us, Why are you still loyal to the NRA now that they too have turned against us? Continued support of the NRA is only keeping funds out of the hands of organizations that will fight to defend and support our rights.

        3. avatar FedUp says:

          We aren’t bashing the NRA because its leadership is ignorant, we’re bashing it because its leadership is complicit.

      3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Historically Negotiating Rights Away has never been about preventing infringements of Americans or members second amendment rights,perhaps a quick list of infringements that they agreed with.

        1791: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified.
        The amendment reads:

        “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
        the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

        After That
        1871: The National Rifle Association was formed by Union Army veterans Col. William C. Church
        and Gen. George Wingate.

        After that, they start going the other way







        2018 Bump Stock Ban

        What is a inalienable individual right and what is a privilege?
        What does “shall not be infringed” plainly mean?
        Does the NRA support the unalienable individual right of the individual to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed by government or does the NRA support government privileges?

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          You post this ignorant litany every chance you get to try to bury NRA and it may work with some of the people here on TTAG but certainly hasn’t made much difference anywhere else…

          As I’ve posted ad nauseum here- it’s a non sequitur with anything prior to 1971 since NRA was not only small and almost entirely marksmanship-based then, but no one in America other than some of the early progressive commies even considered the 2nd Amendment to be anything other than what it states.

          As I’ve also stated many times, and you know damn well as truth is the fact that the “Semiauto ban” and NICS system (1993-94) were going to pass no matter what anyone did at the time and gun owners everywhere should be thankful NRA negotiated the deal we have now that the semi “ban” is long gone and NICS checks in the smart states like Iowa aren’t even taken on firearms purchases if one has a permit to carry or acquire. Again, if your personal state wasn’t smart enough to produce law like that, you probably ought to start focusing there. Of course, those crapholes can only blame NRA for their problems, not themselves and their splintered little non-coalitions that cannot connect the dots as to how legislation is concocted, introduced, run through the process and becomes law in their own state let alone in the US Congress. How come GOA, the NAGRs or the other so-called no compromise pals or yours, if you have any, haven’t been able to help you out yet?

          So- Green boy, next time you cut and paste your long line of BS, why don’t you also do likewise with a similar line of victories and progress by the Brown-, Knox- and Pratt-tards that lurk around the web? Of course the answer is: You can’t- they have nothing, and this little list of yours is all, and I mean ALL you’ve got, with no hope of adding to it.

          As I’ve said several times before, you’ve obviously forgotten to blame NRA for Wyatt Earp making the cowboys checking their guns when they entered Tombstone on the NRA, the NRA was 10 years old at the time.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      constructive criticism is a good thing…

  3. avatar A.T.F. = Criminal FRAUD says:

    The A.T.F. ‘ rule making ‘ and it’s general right to exist must be challenged.

    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


  4. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    This lawsuit doesn’t seem well written, relying on the court to interpret and impose fair play. The filing seems a little light on the law. The “he isn’t a lawful acting AG” bit is a stretch. This won’t go anywhere.

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      And even if it does go somewhere, this isn’t the kind of fight you want to win on a technicality.

      We shouldnt be pinning a win on the word “Acting”.

    2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      Actually, there are a number of lawsuits questioning the legitimacy of Acting AG Whitaker. The view in the legal community is divided over that, see:

      Who Is Lawfully the Attorney General Right Now?
      Why first principles suggest that Matthew Whitaker’s acting appointment is invalid, but precedent and practice might suggest the opposite.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        at least the whitaker thing gets the dems on board with us…a most unusual alliance…

  5. avatar Imayeti says:

    Hey! I’m a lifetime member of the NRA! How do I get my money back?

  6. avatar Fudds McKenzie, the Original Party Fudd says:

    Why would the NRA sue, they greenlighted it and criticizing it for not opening a registry for existing bump-stocks is more than enough to convince the kool-ade drinkers the NRA has their backs.

    As a lifetime member come down off your cross, by signing up that way you’ve badically told them to do as they please. Was it worth it so you could brag about being a lifetime member? Do you have a way to use your vote to correct them from the inside?

    1. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

      “Do you have a way to use your vote to correct them from the inside?”

      If don’t know the answer to that one, you are a ‘Fudd’ to the *bone*.

      Life members vote for the board of directors, if memory serves.

      Vote ’em right the fuck out…

      1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

        There are 76 members on the NRA Board of Directors. In this year’s election, there is exactly one reformer, Adam Kraut, that could be voted in. He failed to secure enough votes in past elections, so did other reformers. According to Rob Pincus (

        “We have 3 options for the near future of the NRA:

        1. Tolerate the enrichment of the leadership and their cronies with funds that are supposed to be defending our rights.
        2. A scandal topples the leadership and possibly takes the organization with it.
        3. The current regime passes the torch to a new generation of leaders that are ready for the fights of Today and Tomorrow and will take the organization back to the businesses of truly Educating and Lobbying instead of merely pandering, fear mongering and fundraising.

        Thankfully, fewer and fewer US Gun Owners are willing to go with option number 1. Option 2 is truly a worst case scenario for all of us and our cause that we should want to avoid. The only way I see to bring about any version of option number 3 is going to be to make the first option impossible. Cut the funding and take away the incentives of self-enrichment and influence peddling from the leadership.”

        1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

          Thank you. I figured changing the NRA from inside was impractical since they’ve been fudding out for 85 years woth no signs of stopping, but the inside history and parliamentary rules bore and repulse me, so I didn’t know the details.

  7. avatar CCDWGUY says:

    Maybe I missed something along the way. All the other lawsuit’s are challenging the fact that a bump stock is not a machine gun. This one seems to assume that it is and would have it included as an NFA item. That is so much worse as it agrees that a bump stock is a machine gun. That’s the last thing you should want. I don’t own one but classifying them as an NFA item opens the door to so many anti-gun opportunities.

    1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      It would be beneficial to read the entire complaint and not just what TTAG selected to present you: In FACTS 28., it actually argues that the ATF’s determination of bump stocks being machine guns is a known complete fabrication by the ATF that is contrary to prior statements by the ATF in a 2017 case.

      1. avatar CCDWGUY says:

        Thanks, I needed that additional information.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        ATF does what they’re told….we all know who set this in motion…

        1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          I agree, but that’s not an argument that will hold up in court, hence I quoted the legal complaint this entire discussion thread is about.

        2. avatar Matthew the Oilman says:

          Rush Limbaugh

  8. avatar Aleric says:

    I was once a member of the NRA, but all I see is them begging for money and NOTHING being done to actually stop or reverse oppressive gun laws. All you NRA fanboys can cry about how we are Bashing them but show me ONE substantial reversal of a gun law the NRA has been the major proponent for? The Brady Ban doesn’t count that simply EXPIRED.

  9. avatar dwb says:

    A complete ban should not survive heightened scrutiny. Which means, the Hughes Amendment itself closing the machine gun registry is unconstitutional.

    No court in the land is going to open the door even a smidge to opening any machine gun registry. Not even the Roberts Court. Its always good to try, but in reality this lawsuit is a Hail Mary.

  10. avatar Nanashi says:

    Remember when Wayne LaPierre said reopening the registry was his top priority? Remember how he said he always supported the ban in 2017?

    Why would anyone expect someone outright caught embezzling money in 1997 to care about anything but his own wallet?

    1. avatar dwb says:

      I think WLP should have retired years ago. He peaked under Obummer.

      That said, there is no universe where we have 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House to open the registry and repeal the Hughes Amendment.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Don’t feed NannyNanashi. Just a resident whining troll.

  11. avatar RWE says:

    I agree that bashing the NRA will not help anything. I think as a community, gun owners should show a united front.

    I personally am of the opinion that NO gun restricting laws are legitimate and I don’t understand how the laws currently on the books stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

    I am concerned about the seeming uptick at the chipping away of all of our natural rights as recognized by our Constitution. I believe it’s well past the time that we as freedom loving people say no more. We will not allow any more incremental losses of our freedoms for some imagined (but never attained) benefit.

    1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      Hillary Clinton said she supports the Second Amendment, should we form a united front with her too? I mean, if someone says they’re pro-gun it must be true, they can’t just be lying for wealth and power.

      1. avatar RWE says:

        This IS what I was talking about. Infighting. Nothing to do with the NRA or any other organization. The united front I am referring to is we the community of gun owners. Whether you are a collector, hunter, competitor or any other flavor of gun owner, when it comes to our rights we should stand together.

        I am a Life member of the NRA. I joined because I believed they would fight for our rights as gun owners. I have joined the GOA because they actually do what I thought the NRA would do. That is not my point. Save the vitriol for the legislators who seek to disarm us.

        I feel we as gun owners should agree that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says with no compromises with anyone in government who would regulate our rights out of existence.

        1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

          Are you sure Hillary doesn’t own a gun? Mike the Gun Guy Weisser does.

    2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      A united front, without the NRA, which is notably absent from the fight, planning the implementation of red flag laws in DC’s backrooms. Keep being concerned about the seeming uptick at the chipping away of all of our natural rights as recognized by our Constitution.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        Quite frankly, I think the NRA told Trump to announce the plan for the bump stock ban to get bump stocks out of the news and prevent Congress from acting and doing something worse.

        I also think the NRA was very influential in the design of the bump stock ban with the assistance of Jeff Sessions and guided the language of the ban specifically to fail judicial scrutiny.

        Only time will tell.

        1. avatar frijoli says:

          I think you are naive. Time will tell, and I hope I have to eat crow.

        2. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          I don’t believe in the 4D beer pong theory.

          The NRA saw that it simply could not defend bump stocks and also was of the opinion that it should not even try. They did tell President Trump to ban it by executive fiat, as they saw that without them defending it attacking legislation banning it and other devices was futile. The NRA basically threw bump stock owners and manufacturers under the bus, as they thought, “for the greater good”.

          As for the ATF rewriting the machine gun rule, it was clear that the DOJ had to get involved as the ATF was told to contradict itself. While many believe the ban is poorly written, it may actually not be thrown out by the courts. Only time will tell. If it gets thrown out, however, we are back where we started. Now, a Democrat House will write that bump stock ban bill, while Congressional Republicans, President Trump and the NRA have already given up on bump stocks.

          Bump stocks will be banned, one way or the other. The NRA fell into the trap of blaming the tool and not the criminal.

        3. avatar Mad Max says:

          I think the end result will be that the SCOTUS will rule that the bump stock ban is a taking.

          First, they’ll rule that the ATF can’t ban them without an act of Congress authorizing a bump stock ban because the existing laws don’t allow for it.

          Then, Congress will ban them without including buying them.

          Then, the SCOTUS will finally rule it’s a taking and then it’s back to Congress for funding.

          After 5 years, all bump stocks will be sold to the ATF.

        4. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          That is probably the best-case scenario.

          The worst-case scenario is the bump stock ban bill becoming a Christmas tree of gun control, just like every other major gun control legislation.

    3. avatar frijoli says:

      RWE, we are united as a community. You just keep fighting against us.

  12. avatar Chiefton says:

    We should not blame the NRA. It is a worthy organization. We need to blame ourselves, the voting members for letting those without any fight in them to stay in leadership there. I take some of that blame myself. We need good information on who to vote for that we can count on to take the fight to them. It obviously is not the ones currently in office.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      I’m a Benefactor life member and every election cycle, I carefully read the descriptions of each candidate and rank them in terms of how strong their support for 2A rights is. I actually take this seriously and spend quite a bit of time doing it.

      I then vote for the candidates that have shown the most support for the 2A.

      I don’t know what else I can do other than withholding further contributions (which I am doing for now).

      I am also a member of GOA and SAF and will likely direct some of the money I would have given to the NRA to them. I’m not sure that withholding contributions from the NRA is a good thing, though.

  13. avatar frijoli says:

    It’s not a game guys. The NRA is no longer with us. (said as a former member)

    At what point will NRA members say enough? Bumpstocks? Binary Triggers? Semi-autos?

    Bad mouthing them is EXACTLY what needs to be done and the NRA needs to be aware.
    I support SAF, GOA, and FPC with my dollars and I badmouth the NRA EVERY time they screw up. Which is a lot more than I want to.

  14. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

    “Seeks to Open ATF Registry”

    Good, this is an angle I wanted explored, and someone is doing it.

    Kudos. I just hope it doesn’t backfire spectacularly on our asses…

  15. avatar Busterdog says:

    The NRA deserves some bad mouthing, but what percentage of people really give a damned about bump stocks? If you want to blame someone blame those that in the 1930’s banned civilian ownership of fully automatic rifles in the first place.

    1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      Civilian ownership of fully automatic rifles wasn’t banned in the 1930s. It was heavily regulated and taxed! Civilian ownership of fully automatic rifles is still not banned today.

      I agree with you, however, that we should blame those that enacted the 1934 National Firearms Act. It was the NRA, among others:

      Karl T. Frederick, the president of the NRA, testified before Congress during the debate over the National Firearms Act of 1934, stating, “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

      Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

    2. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      Private fully automatic firearms, I think you mean private not civilian, weren’t banned in the 1930’s. A thing called the NFA was passed in 1934, that would later become a defacto ban. The NRA supported it. So do you blame the NRA now?

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      nobody gave a damn about machine guns back then…the only thing they wanted was for them to go away…we’re lucky handguns weren’t included…..

      1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

        nobody gave a damn about bump stocks back then…the only thing they wanted was for them to go away…we’re lucky semi-autos weren’t included…..

        1. avatar Cory C. says:


      2. avatar Nick says:

        They were initially. That’s why all the other categories exist, to prevent workarounds to circumvent a handgun ban. How else can the AOW definition be explained?

  16. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    No. Do not ask to open the NFA registry. It will confirm that bumpstocks are NFA items. They are no such thing.

    1. avatar Removed_californian says:

      It’s less about validating that bumpstocks are machineguns and more about trying to reopen the registry to allow for civilian full auto again. Or at least flooding the nfa market with new MG’s in an attempt to bring the price of transferable guns to a reasonable value.

      This is the same attorney that took two approved form 1 machine guns to the circuit courts a couple years back.

  17. avatar 2a suxs sucks says:

    If they did open the registry what would that mean for people in States like Illinois?

  18. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Why aren’t WE, the gun owners insisting that GOA and NRA work together? It is absolutely asinine that they don’t. And we should insist that all other gun owners join a group? What’s that old adage, “Divided we fall, UNITED we stand”? Quarreling among ourselves is stupid! Do you hear the left quarreling? Not really. The commies coming into the House aren’t real Democrats.

  19. avatar jram01 says:

    Bump Stocks. Who in there right mind would want these accessories for any good reason.
    No one would other than using such a device as that “Jerk” did in Las Vegas. Just common sense and just asking for more trouble.

    1. avatar Nick says:

      It’s not about the bumpstocks. It’s a shame so many fail to see that. What this is about is the manner in which they’re going after them. Changing the definition of a weapon and then using that changed definition to institute a complete and total ban that requires surrender or destruction of the item.

      You can’t see how this could get out of hand?

      1. avatar Don from CT says:

        The key thing is without compensation.

    2. avatar Removed_californian says:

      AR15’s. Who in there right mind would want these rifles for any good reason.
      No one would other than using such a device as that “Jerk” did in Las Vegas. Just common sense and just asking for more trouble.

      Is it wabbit season already?

  20. avatar Sora says:


    VOTE out NRA Board members. 5+ years members get to vote with ballot on the paper subscriptions

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      I try by voting, but I don’t think we ever had the NRA to begin with.

  21. avatar Don from CT says:

    I wouldn’t really have a problem with a bumpstock ban if it was done constitutionally. Shoot, I’d gladly trade it away for something else like the hearing protection act, or national carry reciprocity.

    The problem is the way its implemented. As such, this has nothing to do with the 2A. Its all about the 5A and the uncompensated taking of property.

    The reality is that if the existing stocks were grandfathered or the Government offered to pay all of us with them $400, then there wouldn’t be any lawsuits.

    If you really want to learn something

    read this:

    then read this which provides legal justification for the protection of personal property, not just real estate.

  22. avatar Don from CT says:

    one other thing. In Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., SCOTUS clarified that taking is not unconstitutional. Taking without fair compensation is what is unconstitutional.

  23. avatar Removed_californian says:

    Get ’em Nolo.

  24. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    Regardless of the various gun orgs fighting or ignoring the bump stock ban, any Senate or House Republicans actually saying anything against the ban (and executive overreach) or are they all cool with it? Honestly a good number of them, maybe all, would have happily voted yes to ban bump stocks, and I guess they are towing the party line, but you would think maybe a Never Trumper might at least raise a concern.

    1. avatar Don from CT says:

      This is where it gets really strange. I wouldn’t be surprised if the ACLU filed a friend of the court brief supporting these suits.

      Again, this has nothing to do with guns.

      Imagine if you bought a Tesla. It was then found to catch fire. Tesla has gone out of business and the Government orders them all destroyed without compensation.

      Its the same thing. Its about personal property rights. Not guns.

  25. avatar Geoff says:

    “Additionally, he points that there there has been at least one case where a the registry has been opened after the May 1986 deadline.”
    IF the Registry was reopened it was to register a pre-1986 machine gun found in somebody’s attic or turned in at a gun “buyback”. It has happened.
    There are no other exceptions to the Hughes Amendment. NO machine gun made after May19th, 1986 can be registered to a Civilian, only Law Enforcement. Military machine guns are exempt from registration with the ATF. The Military handles it.

  26. avatar Geoff says:

    The only way to legally reopen the Registry is to REPEAL THE HUGHES AMENDMENT TO FOPA and allow us to once again buy REAL modern, up-to-date machine guns.
    You know it was a Democrat that took them away from us. Charles Rangel. Even though the Voice Vote was AGAINST the Amendment.

  27. avatar Lawbob says:

    Long game guys.

    NRA gets the media attention always. Better to let the smaller entities mitigate this and keep nra out of it.

    1. avatar Lawbob says:

      Litigate not mitigate

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email