A federal judge in Texas found two parts of a federal “ghost gun” regulation unconstitutional and restricted their enforcement against two gun-rights groups and covered members. The August 17 ruling matters now because it protects specified people and products without canceling the entire regulation nationwide.
Key Facts
- Federal court: Judge Reed O’Connor ruled for Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation on their Second Amendment and constitutional vagueness claims.
- Limited relief: The declaration applies to the two groups and the foundation’s current and future members.
- Split result: The federal government won summary judgment on the challengers’ three remaining Administrative Procedure Act claims.
What the judge decided
O’Connor ruled that parts of 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 478.12(c) violated the Second Amendment and were unconstitutionally vague. A law is unconstitutionally vague when it does not provide the fair notice required by the Fifth Amendment.
The disputed provisions address certain weapon-parts kits and partially complete, disassembled or nonfunctional frames and receivers. They are part of an ATF rule adopted in 2022.
Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation argued that the rule burdened the right to make firearms for personal use. They also argued that its standards did not clearly separate regulated items from unregulated material.
The federal defendants defended the rule and asked the court to enter judgment in their favor. The government prevailed on three claims that challenged ATF’s rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Summary judgment means the court resolved the claims without a trial because it determined that no trial was needed to decide them.
Who receives protection
The August 17 order granted the following relief.
The court declared §§ 478.11 and 478.12(c) unconstitutional and unenforceable against Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation and the foundation’s current and future members.
The permanent injunction separately bars enforcement against those beneficiaries only with respect to Defense Distributed’s M1911 80% Frames and G80 Build Kit, Unfinished Receiver, and Grip Module.
The order therefore does not remove the complete rule for every manufacturer, seller or gun owner. People outside the named beneficiaries, and products outside the injunction’s list, remain beyond the order’s direct protection.
The original VanDerStok plaintiffs and other intervenors dismissed their remaining claims after the case returned from the Supreme Court. The August relief went to Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation, which remained in the case.
Why the Supreme Court ruling did not end the case
The Supreme Court considered a different question in Bondi v. VanDerStok in 2025. It held that federal firearms law permits ATF to regulate at least some weapon-parts kits and partially complete frames or receivers.
That was a facial statutory challenge, which asked whether the regulation exceeded ATF’s authority in all its applications. The Supreme Court reversed the earlier judgment against the rule and returned the case to the lower courts.
The Supreme Court did not decide the constitutional claims resolved in the new district-court ruling. The two decisions therefore address different legal questions rather than conflicting rulings on the same question.
What the 2022 rule changed
ATF published the final frame-or-receiver rule on April 26, 2022, and made it effective on August 24, 2022. The measure revised federal definitions involving firearms, frames and receivers and added marking and recordkeeping requirements.
The rule treats some readily completed weapon-parts kits as firearms under federal law. It also covers some partially complete frames and receivers while excluding material that has not become clearly identifiable as an unfinished weapon component.
For a broader explanation of how agencies adopt binding regulations, see TheFirstFile’s guide to federal rulemaking.
Sources
- Opinion and Order, Defense Distributed v. Blanche, ECF No. 330
- Federal Defendants’ Reply Supporting Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 328
- Supreme Court Opinion, Bondi v. VanDerStok
- Supreme Court Docket No. 23-852
- ATF Final Rule: Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms
