TexasCHLforum.com

I wondered at the time if Trump teed up the bumpstock ban just to get a case like this into the system.

Many have suspected the EPA and other federal agencies with colluding with certain non-profit groups to use lawsuits to extend their power beyond that they could get from Congress. Suppose an agency wants to meddle in something that they can't get Congress to go along with because of those dang republicans. It's convenient if an outside group sues them under some theory that if you squint hard enough the existing law really does cover it and if the agency doesn't have this power the planet will die/existing situation is discriminatory against minority populations/other "civil rights violation"/whatever. File your case in DC where (up until the Trump era) you are pretty much guaranteed to have a judge who doesn't think there is such a thing as too much government power and regulation. The agency puts up a pro forma defense, loses, and is now ordered by the court to do whatever it is they really wanted to do in the first place so they don't appeal, and now they have new regulatory power based on court rulings. The agency and their "opponents" in court go out and have a nice dinner.

So many people think Trump is just the reactive child who never thinks ahead and are constantly surprised when stuff happens like peace treaties in the middle east, he puts both Russia and China on their back feet, new alliances against foes of the US, the economy takes off like a rocket, etc. He ican see far ahead, is pretty devious, and is willing to take the heat by doing something now that garners a lot of negative attention, but simultaneously distracts (his enemies and nearly as often his friends) and facilitates (a long term goal).

Killing chevron deference, trimming the ATF's regulatory powers, and extending the 2A might very well have been the strategic goal all along.