Texas Judge Reed O'Connor Strikes Down Biden-Era ATF 'Ghost Gun' Rule as Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Fort Worth has thrown out key parts of the ATF's 2022 rule targeting so-called ghost guns, ruling the regulation is both unconstitutionally vague and a violation of the Second Amendment.

Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor of the Northern District of Texas issued the ruling on August 17 in Defense Distributed v. Blanche, siding with Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

What the rule actually did

Congress defined "firearm" in the 1968 Gun Control Act to include any weapon that "will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile," along with the "frame or receiver" of that weapon, according to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). For decades, ATF's predecessor agency used a narrow, mechanical definition of frame or receiver tied to specific physical features like the housing for a hammer or bolt.

In 2022, the Biden administration's ATF rewrote that definition. The new rule covered partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames and receivers that are "designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted" into a working part, according to 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c). It also let ATF weigh whether a kit came bundled with jigs, templates, tools, or instructions when deciding if the whole package counted as a firearm.

The rule excluded raw, unformed material, like a plain block of metal or liquid polymer, but didn't draw a clear line for where unfinished stops and regulated starts.

The Supreme Court already weighed in, but not on this

In March 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Bondi v. VanDerStok that the Gun Control Act gives ATF authority to regulate at least some unfinished frames, receivers, and parts kits, rejecting a facial challenge under federal administrative law. That decision, centered on a Polymer80 kit, settled whether Congress gave ATF the statutory power to act at all.

What the Supreme Court did not decide were the constitutional claims Defense Distributed raised separately: whether the rule violates the Second Amendment and whether it's so vague it fails due process. Those claims went back to O'Connor's courtroom, and that's what he ruled on August 17.

Why O'Connor said the rule fails

O'Connor's opinion zeroes in on the word "readily." The statute uses it. The 2022 rule uses it too, but stacks on ATF's discretion to weigh time, tools, skill, and expense, plus whatever marketing materials or kits are sold alongside a part.

"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, according to Reason and multiple other outlets that reviewed the order.

On the Second Amendment side, O'Connor found that making and repairing a personal firearm is protected conduct. That forced the government to show its rule matches the country's historical tradition of firearm regulation, the test the Supreme Court set out in Bruen. The government pointed to old colonial-era gunpowder storage laws and barrel-inspection requirements. O'Connor rejected the comparison, writing the rule "contradicts the actual historical tradition of personal gunsmithing" and that those older laws were about product safety and explosives storage, not stopping people from building their own guns.

What this ruling does and doesn't do

This is not a nationwide strike-down of every product marketed as an "80% lower." The ruling applies specifically to Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, and SAF's current and future members, not the general public. "80% receiver" is an industry term anyway, not a legal threshold. There's no federal rule that a part becomes a firearm at exactly 80% completion or any other fixed percentage, and O'Connor's ruling doesn't create one either.

Gun control advocates have long argued the opposite side of this issue matters just as much. Unserialized, unregulated firearm kits let people build working guns without background checks or traceable serial numbers, making them harder for law enforcement to trace after a crime. That's a real, documented concern behind why the Biden administration wrote the rule in the first place, and it doesn't disappear because a district judge found the specific regulatory language too vague to enforce fairly. O'Connor's ruling doesn't say ghost guns can't be regulated at all, just that this particular rule's undefined standards violated due process and, as applied to these plaintiffs, the Second Amendment.

The Justice Department has not announced whether it will appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Until that happens, or until another court reaches a different conclusion for a different plaintiff, the practical reach of O'Connor's ruling stays limited to the parties who sued.