The Ghost Gun Rule Survived the Supreme Court. It Didn’t Survive the Trip Back to Texas.
The Supreme Court upheld ATF’s frame-or-receiver rule last year. On remand, a Fort Worth judge just struck it under the Second and Fifth Amendments, with an injunction covering every SAF member.
A federal judge in Fort Worth just declared the ATF ghost gun rule unconstitutional, twice over: once under the Second Amendment and once for being too vague to follow. Chief Judge Reed O’Connor signed the opinion Monday and entered final judgment Tuesday in the same lawsuit the Supreme Court sent back to his courtroom last year (case 4:22-cv-00691).
And yes, this is the rule the Supreme Court upheld in March 2025. Bondi v. VanDerStok answered a statutory question, whether the Gun Control Act let the ATF reach parts kits and unfinished frames at all, and both sides in this round agreed the Justices never touched the constitutional ones.
What just got struck: the April 2022 rule (87 Fed. Reg. 24,652) rewrote two definitions, 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 and § 478.12(c), to sweep partially complete frames and receivers, plus any kit that “may readily be completed” into a working firearm, under the Gun Control Act. Deciding “readily” takes an eight-factor test: time, ease, expertise, equipment, and four more after that.
O’Connor found that exercise void for vagueness, writing that the call “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.” In plain English: it’s a personality quiz for a block of aluminum, and only the ATF gets to grade it.
The history homework: the Second Amendment claim went worse for the government. Its historical analogues were colonial barrel-proofing laws and gunpowder storage ordinances, and the court read those as product-safety rules for finished guns, not limits on building your own.
The opinion is blunt about which way the tradition cuts: “Self-manufacture of firearms in America was common and indeed foundational to establishing our Nation.”
Who’s actually covered: the injunction blocks enforcement against Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, and any of SAF’s current or future members, specifically for Defense Distributed’s M1911 80% frames and its G80 build kit, unfinished receiver, and grip module. “Future members” is the phrase doing quiet work here: an SAF card now carries a federal injunction with it, which is more than your gym membership ever managed.
Not an SAF member, not buying from Defense Distributed? Then the rule still applies to you today, and it keeps applying while the appeal clock runs.
What the government salvaged: the plaintiffs also brought three Administrative Procedure Act claims and lost all three. They’ll take that trade, since an APA defect gets patched with fresh rulemaking while a constitutional defect ends the conversation.
Anderson Manufacturing AM-15 Stripped Lower Receiver (Multi-Cal)
This ruling is about the unserialized 80% route, but the serialized route stays open to everyone: a stripped lower transfers through your FFL like any other firearm, and the rest of the build is yours from there. At around $40 it's still the cheapest legal foundation an AR build can sit on.
Both camps reacted on cue. SAF’s Adam Kraut said the rule “sought to outright prohibit Second Amendment protected conduct,” while Everytown Law’s Eric Tirschwell called the decision “egregiously wrong” and said the Justice Department should appeal, per The Center Square.
What happens next: an appeal would land at the Fifth Circuit, and the government rarely lets a struck rule ride. It’s also the second time this month a Texas federal courtroom has carved a piece out of federal gun regulation, after the NFA registration ruling two weeks ago.
Your move: if you build, nothing changes overnight unless you’re an SAF member running Defense Distributed’s covered products. The serialized route never went anywhere: a stripped lower transfers through your FFL for about $40, and our best AR-15s guide covers what a finished build should look like.
Watch the docket for a notice of appeal, and watch whether ATF’s enforcement posture toward non-members shifts in the meantime. The aluminum quiz heads to New Orleans next. Does a membership card with a federal injunction attached change your build plans? Let us know in the comments.
Sources: Opinion & Order, VanDerStok v. Blanche, No. 4:22-cv-00691 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2026) and Final Judgment (Aug. 18, 2026) via CourtListener; Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. 458 (2025); Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652; The Center Square.
Justin Trump is the managing editor and owner of CAT Outdoors. The son of a Vietnam veteran, he’s a Certified Glock Armorer, an avid gun enthusiast and 2A advocate. He holds two firearm patents for the CAT M4 and Talon tools. When not managing CAT Outdoors, he enjoys spending time with his family and friends, rooting for Michigan sports teams, and serving his church.