TEXAS FEDERAL COURT STRIKES DOWN ATF’S “GHOST GUN” FRAME-ON-RECEIVER RULE – AGAIN
On August 17, 2026, Chief Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a decision granting summary judgment for Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”) in Defense Distributed v. Blanche, No. 4:22-cv-00691-O, holding that key portions of the ATF’s 2022 Final Rule redefining the terms “frame or receiver” for purposes of the Gun Control Act, 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 478.12(c) (the “Final Rule”), are unconstitutional and void for vagueness. This is the second time in this litigation the Final Rule has been struck down, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s contrary treatment of the statutory question just last year.
The case was filed in 2022, as VanDerStok v. Garland, to challenge ATF’s Final Rule extending the Gun Control Act’s “firearm” regulation to partially complete frames and receivers. The district court and Fifth Circuit initially sided with plaintiffs, but the Supreme Court reversed in Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. 458 (2025), rejecting a facial statutory challenge. On remand, all the original plaintiffs were dismissed except for Defense Distributed and SAF, who pressed forward on three remaining theories under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and two as-applied constitutional claims: a Second Amendment challenge and a Fifth Amendment vagueness claim.
Judge O’Connor rejected the APA claims, but granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on both constitutional counts. On vagueness, the court found the Final Rule’s “readily” convertible standard and its “clearly identifiable” threshold left regulated parties to guess “at some unknown point” when raw material becomes a regulated frame or receiver.
Addressing the Second Amendment claim, the court held that the historical analogues offered by the government—colonial barrel-proofing and gunpowder-storage laws—addressed product safety, rather than crime control, and therefore, were not “relevantly similar” to the Final Rule. In fact, the court found a robust historical tradition of unregulated self-manufacture of firearms dating to the colonial era.
The court issued a final judgment on August 18, 2026, declaring the Final Rule unconstitutional and permanently enjoining defendants from enforcing it against Defense Distributed, SAF, and SAF’s members, but only as to two specifically identified Defense Distributed products.
Judge O’Connor did not stay the injunction and it is already in effect. Defendants have until October 19, 2026 to appeal to the Fifth Circuit. At this time, it is unknown whether the government plans to appeal the decision.
Renzulli Law Firm, LLP will continue to monitor new and developing firearms related litigation around the country. If you have any questions concerning the firearms industry, please contact Christopher Renzulli.