A federal judge in Texas has ruled that two key provisions of the ATF’s Biden-era “ghost gun” rule violate the Second Amendment and are unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment.
Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor issued the 29-page Opinion & Order Monday in Defense Distributed v. Blanche, the latest round in a case that has already been to the Supreme Court.
O’Connor declared 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 478.12(c) unconstitutional and said they cannot be enforced against Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, or SAF’s current and future members.
The decision does not wipe the entire ATF rule off the books nationwide. O’Connor’s permanent injunction bars enforcement of those provisions against those parties with respect to Defense Distributed’s M1911 80% Frames, G80 Build Kit, Unfinished Receiver, and Grip Module.
The ATF’s 2022 Rule
The case stems from ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F, formally titled “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms.” The 2022 rule changed how ATF treats certain weapon parts kits and unfinished frames and receivers.
Among other things, it says a frame or receiver can include a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional item that “may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted” to function as one. Covered kits and components can therefore be treated as firearms under federal law, triggering licensing, recordkeeping, marking, and dealer background-check requirements.
ATF listed eight factors for deciding whether something can be “readily” completed, including time, difficulty, expertise, equipment, parts availability, expense, scope of work, and feasibility.
That became a major problem for the government.
Didn’t The Supreme Court Already Uphold This?
Yes, but on a different question.
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Bondi v. VanDerStok in March 2025 that ATF’s rule was not facially inconsistent with the Gun Control Act. The Court found that at least some weapon parts kits and partially complete frames or receivers can qualify as firearms under the statute.
It did not decide whether the rule violates the Second Amendment or the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. O’Connor notes that both sides agreed those constitutional issues were still open.
After the case returned to his court, Defense Distributed and SAF continued pressing those claims.
Too Vague To Enforce
O’Connor found ATF’s standards too indefinite to give people fair notice of when an unfinished object becomes a regulated firearm component.
The rule’s eight “readily” factors are expressly nonexclusive, and it provides no firm threshold for how they should be weighed. O’Connor wrote that the test ultimately devolved into “guesswork and intuition.”
He also criticized the rule’s use of the term “clearly identifiable” to distinguish raw material from an unfinished receiver.
“So, at some unknown point between an ‘unformed block of metal’ or ‘liquid polymer’ and a fully completed firearm,” O’Connor wrote, an unfinished object becomes regulated.
He held the challenged provisions void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment.
The Second Amendment Claim
O’Connor also ruled for the plaintiffs on the Second Amendment.
He wrote that the parties “do not appear to dispute” that individuals making or repairing firearms is conduct covered by the Second Amendment. The burden therefore shifted to the government to justify the rule using the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
The government pointed to colonial barrel-proofing requirements and old gunpowder-storage laws. O’Connor found those analogies unpersuasive because they were aimed primarily at preventing accidents, not regulating personally manufactured firearms for traceability.
“The Final Rule does not merely lack supporting analogues,” he wrote. “It contradicts the actual historical tradition of personal gunsmithing.”
He added that “self-manufacture of firearms in America was common and indeed foundational to establishing our Nation.”
O’Connor concluded that the government had failed to establish a sufficiently similar historical tradition.
What Happens Next
O’Connor granted Defense Distributed and SAF summary judgment on their Second and Fifth Amendment claims while siding with the government on three Administrative Procedure Act claims.
Reuters reports that the Trump administration’s Justice Department continued defending the Biden-era rule in court and had not immediately commented on the decision. Everytown Law criticized the ruling and said it expects an appeal.
Meanwhile, USA Carry reports that Gun Owners of America is urging DOJ not to appeal.
For now, the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling on ATF’s statutory authority remains intact, while O’Connor’s decision opens a separate constitutional challenge to the rule.
