Federal Judge Strikes Down ATF Ghost Gun Rule

National News - A federal judge in Texas has ruled against a major ATF gun regulation, saying it violates the Second Amendment and is too vague to enforce.

The ruling came from Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in the Northern District of Texas on August 17, 2026. It is the latest chapter in a long running lawsuit over how the federal government defines a firearm.

The case is Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation versus U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and the ATF. It centers on a 2022 rule that changed how the ATF defines a "frame or receiver," the core part of a gun that is regulated under federal law.

The new rule expanded that definition to include partially finished frames and receivers, often called ghost gun parts.

Judge O'Connor found the rule unconstitutional on two grounds. First, he ruled it violates the Second Amendment because it restricts a person's right to build or repair their own firearm, something he said has a long history in the United States going back to colonial times.

Second, he ruled the rule is void for vagueness because it does not clearly explain when a block of metal or plastic legally becomes a regulated gun part.

The judge did side with the government on three other claims in the case, involving how the ATF explained its reasoning and whether Congress properly gave the agency authority to write the rule.

As a result of the ruling, the court declared two parts of the ATF regulation, found in the federal code at 27 C.F.R. sections 478.11 and 478.12(c), unconstitutional and unenforceable against Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation.

The judge also issued a permanent injunction blocking the government from enforcing those rules against several of Defense Distributed's specific products, including its M1911 80 percent frames and its G80 build kit, receiver, and grip module.

This lawsuit has a lengthy history. It was first filed in 2022 by a group of plaintiffs that included Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation.

An earlier ruling in the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed part of the lower court's decision in 2025. After that, most of the original plaintiffs dropped their claims, leaving Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation to continue the fight.

The ruling is a win for the plaintiffs, though it does not strike down the entire ATF rule everywhere in the country. It applies specifically to Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the group's members. It is likely the Justice Department will consider whether to appeal the decision.