By Michael Clements
Contributing Writer
A U.S. District Court Judge in Texas struck down a Biden administration rule on so-called “ghost guns” on Monday.
In the case of Defense Distributed et. al., v. Blanche, U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor found that the April 2022 rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that redefined frames and receivers under the Gun Control Act of 1968 was too vague and violated the Second Amendment.
The same rule was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2025, after a separate challenge on different legal grounds.
The frame and receiver rule promulgated by the ATF in April 2022 redefined the term “firearm” to include partially finished frames and receivers, found in so-called “buy, build, shoot” kits. This required them to be assigned serial numbers just as fully functional firearms are required to have.
O’Connor issued an injunction preventing the government from enforcing the rule against any of the named plaintiffs. Those not named in the legal action are still subject to the rule.
“Having found that the final rule is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and void for vagueness under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment the court grants plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment,” O’Connor’s decision states.
The defendant is Todd Blanche in his role as U.S. attorney general, representing the government. The government is eligible to appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Second Amendment Foundation, one of the plaintiffs, celebrated the ruling in a press release.
“This rule was such a mess that it not only violated the Second Amendment but was so terribly drafted that it managed to be ruled unconstitutionally vague,” Adam Kraut, the Second Amendment Foundation’s executive director, stated in the release.
But gun control/gun safety advocates decried the decision. In its own statement, the Giffords Law Center warned that the ruling would arm criminals.
“Under the logic of this injunction, people ineligible to possess guns could get an untraceable ghost gun without any background checks or training,” Giffords Executive Director Emma Brown said.
“The Trump administration has a choice to make — will it stand with law enforcement to appeal this dangerous decision or with extremist gun lobby campaign donors?”
The plaintiffs, Defense Distributors and the Second Amendment Foundation, claimed the rule violated the Vagueness Doctrine. Under this rule a regulation is unenforceable if it is too unclear for a person to understand which conduct is prohibited.
O’Connor wrote that the ATF rule did not clarify when a partially completed frame or receiver crossed the line from raw material to regulated firearm.
“The decision of when a hunk of metal or plastic ‘may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver’ is left to the subjective determination of the ATF,” O’Connor stated in his ruling.
O’Connor also found that the rule failed to meet the standard set by the June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the plaintiff’s second claim.
Under that standard, if conduct covered by a gun law fits the plain language of the Second Amendment, it must have a historical analog from the time of the amendment’s ratification.
O’Connor found the conduct covered by the rule, citizens making their own firearms, fit the language of the U.S. Constitution. However, he ruled that rather than regulating the private manufacture of guns, the United States has traditionally allowed the practice.
“The final rule does not merely lack supporting analogues. It contradicts the actual historical tradition of personal gunsmithing. Self-manufacture of firearms in America was common and indeed foundational to establishing our nation,” O’Connor stated.
The plaintiffs also claimed the ATF violated three other aspects of the Administrative Procedures Act, but O’Connor disagreed, finding for the defendants on those claims.
The frame and receiver rule was previously challenged in VanDerStok v. Bondi on the grounds that the ATF exceeded its legal authority under the Administrative Procedures Act when it formulated the rule.
On March 26, 2025, the high court rejected that claim stating that the rule fell within ATF’s regulatory authority.
