Judge sides with Defense Distributed over gun 'frame or receiver' rules

Audio By Carbonatix

(The Center Square) – Can the federal government impose firearm regulations on an incomplete hunk of metal? One federal judge says no.

In 2022, the Biden administration's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued final rules entitled Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms. A federal judge for the Northern District of Texas said Tuesday, what the ATF regulates as a firearm changed 45 years of precedent to include partially manufactured frames and receivers as “firearms.”

The final rule also amends ATF’s definition of “firearm” to include weapon parts kits that are “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”

The case VanDerStok v. Garland was first filed in 2022. It has since turned into Defense Distributed v. Blanche. Defense Distributed had sold blocks of metal that were 80% completed lower receivers that could be used to build a rifle. The company also sold a kit to complete the block. Separately, the company has been involved in another legal controversy over computer files that can be used to 3D print firearms. 

An order and opinion in the frames and receivers rule case was issued Tuesday by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor.

“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 and does not provide fair notice to the reader about when a component becomes subject to enforcement,” O’Connor wrote. “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.”

On questions around plaintiffs' claims against the federal government over the Administrative Procedure Act, the judge granted defendants’ motion for summary judgement.

“The Court rightly held that the Biden ATF’s rule not only sought to outright prohibit Second Amendment protected conduct but was written in such a vague and vaporous manner as to chill that protected conduct by making it impossible to even know what was legal and what wasn’t,” Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut said in a statement.

The Second Amendment Foundation was one of the plaintiffs in the case.

The ruling was denounced by gun control advocates Everytown Law.

“There is no Second Amendment right to buy or sell an untraceable ghost gun kit without a background check. This decision is egregiously wrong, and we expect the Justice Department to promptly appeal,” said Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law. “The Supreme Court has already made clear in VanDerStok that the Gun Control Act applies to the vast majority of ghost gun kits that had been on the market, and requires background checks and serial numbers. No outlier decision from an extreme lower court judge can change that.”

For the remedy, O’Connor said plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment resolving the rule has produced ongoing injury.

The order also enjoins defendants from enforcing various sections of the law against Defense Distributed, SAF, or any of SAF’s current or future members with respect to Defense Distributed’s M1911 80% Frames and G80 Build Kit, Unfinished Receiver, and Grip Module.