We have another significant federal firearms decision to report. On August 17, 2026, Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an Opinion and Order in Defense Distributed v. Blanche, No. 4:22-cv-00691, holding key portions of ATF’s 2022 Frame or Receiver Rule unconstitutional as applied to Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”), and SAF’s current and future members. The court found constitutional problems under both the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
While the original rules primarily targeted commercial manufacturers and dealers in firearms, this is an important decision, particularly for individuals who make or repair firearms for their own personal use. However, the scope of the court’s relief matters, and this case is not necessarily over.
What Was the ATF Frame or Receiver Rule?
In 2022, ATF substantially revised its regulations defining a “firearm,” “frame or receiver,” and related terms under the federal Gun Control Act (“GCA”). The GCA defines “firearm” in relevant part to include: “(A) any weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; [and] (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).
ATF’s Final Rule expanded its regulatory treatment of certain partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames and receivers, as well as certain weapon-parts kits. Among other things, ATF’s regulations considered whether an item could “readily” be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver.
That determination could involve consideration of factors such as the time, ease, expertise, equipment, parts availability, expense, scope, and feasibility of completing the item. ATF could also consider things such as jigs, templates, tools, instructions, guides, and marketing materials.
The practical concern was straightforward: at what point does a piece of metal or polymer that could eventually become part of a firearm legally become a “firearm” subject to federal regulation? The plaintiffs argued that ATF’s Rule failed to provide a sufficiently clear answer.
The Supreme Court Had Already Considered This Rule — But Not These Issues
Some of you may remember that the U.S. Supreme Court addressed this same ATF Rule in Bondi v. VanDerStok in 2025.
The Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to ATF’s statutory authority, concluding that the Gun Control Act is broad enough to encompass at least some weapon-parts kits and some partially complete frames or receivers.
Importantly, however, the Supreme Court did not decide the constitutional claims now at issue. After the case returned to the district court, Defense Distributed and SAF continued litigating their remaining claims, including challenges under the Second and Fifth Amendments. Those are the claims Judge O’Connor addressed in this latest decision.
The Second Amendment Holding
One of the most noteworthy portions of the opinion concerns the personal manufacture and repair of firearms. The court concluded that making and repairing firearms falls within conduct protected by the Second Amendment.
Once conduct falls within the Second Amendment’s protection, the government bears the burden under the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment framework to demonstrate that its regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The court examined the historical record concerning private gunsmithing and firearm manufacture and determined that the government had failed to establish a sufficient historical tradition supporting the restrictions imposed by the Rule. Accordingly, the court held the challenged regulations unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to the protected plaintiffs and members.
This portion of the opinion could ultimately have significance extending beyond unfinished receivers. The court’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects the ability of individuals to make and repair firearms for personal use is an important development in Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The Fifth Amendment Holding: The Rule Is Too Vague
The court separately held that the challenged regulations violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because they are unconstitutionally vague. A law carrying potential criminal consequences must give ordinary people adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited and must provide sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. The court concluded that ATF’s regulatory framework failed that test.
In particular, the court focused on the uncertainty surrounding terms such as “readily” and “clearly identifiable,” the Rule’s multi-factor analysis, and the ability to consider surrounding circumstances and materials when determining whether an unfinished item had crossed the line into becoming a regulated firearm. In other words, when getting the answer wrong can potentially expose someone to federal criminal liability, the government cannot leave citizens guessing about where the legal line is drawn.
What Exactly Did the Court Order?
This is where the details become especially important. The court declared 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 478.12(c) unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment as applied to the parties before the court.
The court’s declaratory relief states that the challenged provisions cannot be enforced against Defense Distributed; the Second Amendment Foundation; and current or future SAF members.
The court also entered a permanent injunction, but the injunction itself is narrower. The permanent injunction prevents the federal government from enforcing the challenged provisions against Defense Distributed, SAF, and current or future SAF members with respect to specifically identified Defense Distributed products addressed by the court. These products are: Defense Distributed’s M1911 80% Frames and G80 Build Kit, Unfinished Receiver, and Grip Module. That distinction matters. The decision should therefore not be interpreted as a nationwide order eliminating the Frame or Receiver Rule for every American or every unfinished firearm product.
Nor should someone assume that simply because he or she is an SAF member, every unfinished frame, receiver, parts kit, or privately manufactured firearm is automatically outside federal regulation.
The declaratory judgment provides important protection to SAF and its members, but the express terms of the permanent injunction are more specifically tied to the products and parties addressed in the case.
Does This Mean You Can Make Your Own Firearm?
Federal law has historically permitted a person who is legally able to possess firearms to manufacture a firearm for their personal use, subject to important exceptions and restrictions. This decision strengthens the constitutional protection surrounding personal firearm manufacture and repair, but it does not eliminate the remainder of federal or state firearms law.
It also does not mean an individual may engage in the business of manufacturing firearms for sale without complying with applicable federal licensing requirements. Additionally, this decision does not automatically override independent state or local laws regulating privately manufactured firearms, serialization, firearm possession, or particular types of weapons.
What Happens Next?
The case may not be over. The federal government can appeal the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The government may also seek a stay of the judgment or injunction while an appeal proceeds.
As of this update, the district court has issued its decision and permanent injunction. We are monitoring the docket closely for any notice of appeal, request for a stay, or additional guidance concerning implementation of the court’s order.
If the government appeals, the Fifth Circuit could affirm the decision, reverse it, modify the scope of the relief, or address the constitutional questions differently. Depending on what happens there, the case could potentially return to the U.S. Supreme Court. So, while this is a significant victory, we would caution against treating the litigation as finally resolved.
What Should Armed Attorneys Members Do Right Now?
We know many of you will have practical questions about what this ruling means for unfinished receivers, firearm kits, privately manufactured firearms, serialization requirements, and other home-manufacturing issues. For now, we recommend caution.
Do not rely on social media posts or headlines stating that “ghost guns are legal again” or that the ATF Rule has been completely eliminated nationwide. Those descriptions significantly oversimplify the court’s order. The exact protections available may depend on the particular product involved, SAF membership, the conduct at issue, and other applicable federal law.
Armed Attorneys members who have questions about how this decision may apply to their specific circumstances are encouraged to contact us before acting.
We are continuing to review developments in Defense Distributed v. Blanche and will update our members if the government appeals, seeks a stay, or additional guidance becomes available. This is a developing case, and we will stay on top of it for you.
