A federal judge has ruled that a Biden-era ATF rule targeting so-called ghost guns violates the Second Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague.
Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas issued a final judgment in favor of Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation this week.
The case challenged the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ April 2022 rule that expanded the definition of a “frame or receiver” and essentially targeted gunsmiths.
The updated definition stated:
Definition of a “frame or receiver” includes a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may quickly and easily (“readily”) be made to function as a “frame or receiver” and expressly excludes a block of metal, liquid polymers and other raw materials or a frame or receiver that has been destroyed.
The rule also updated the definitions for the terms “complete weapon,” “complete muffler or silencer device,” “privately made firearm,” and “readily.”
Ammo Land reported the ATF could also consider other parts, templates, and instructions when determining whether a part fell under the rule.
Did the judge get this ruling right?
Yes: 100% (1 Votes)
No: 0% (0 Votes)
O’Connor found that approach failed to give ordinary people proper notice if their firearms were suddenly deemed illegal.
“Because the Final Rule fails to provide appropriate guidance, it is void for vagueness,” the judge wrote, according to a copy of the ruling obtained by The Daily Caller.
O’Connor concluded it invited arbitrary enforcement and created more unpredictability than the Fifth Amendment allows.
The judge separately ruled that the rule violated the Second Amendment, which protects the right to make and repair a personal firearm.
O’Connor rejected the government’s reliance on colonial-era gunpowder storage and gun barrel laws.
“The Final Rule does not merely lack supporting analogues,” O’Connor wrote. “It contradicts the actual historical tradition of personal gunsmithing.”
He added, “Self-manufacture of firearms in America was common and indeed foundational to establishing our Nation.”
Ammo Land reported that O’Connor found the historical tradition strongly supported the unregulated self-manufacturing of arms dating back to the 19th century.
The ruling was not a complete win for gun rights:
The plaintiffs lost on their Administrative Procedure Act claims.
The judge found that the ATF adequately explained its change in position by referencing technological advances, crime data, and the grandfathering of prior classifications. The Rule relied on means-end scrutiny, but Bruen was decided after the Rule was issued, so there was no failure to consider then-controlling law.
The ruling comes after the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok, which allowed the ATF to regulate “ghost guns” without serial numbers.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
