SCOTUS Statutory Ruling Not the Final Word on Biden-Era “Frame or Receiver” Rule

For years, NRA-ILA has closely followed and reported on the legal and regulatory saga surrounding the Biden-Harris administration’s so-called “Frame or Receiver” rule. From the rule’s earliest stages, we warned that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) was attempting to stretch federal law beyond what Congress actually enacted with respect to the longstanding tradition of law-abiding citizens privately making firearms for personal use. The rule expanded federal firearm regulations to cover certain unfinished frame and receiver blanks as well as some firearm-parts kits that could be “readily” converted into functional firearms.  Predictably, litigation ensued.

Last week, a narrow but important win emerged for a case that had already traveled to the U.S. Supreme Court and back. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Defense Distributed v. Blanche, concluded that the portions of the challenged ATF “frame or receiver” rule, in particular portions of 27 C.F.R.§ § 478.11 and 478.12(c), are unconstitutional on two grounds, the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment.

In that ruling, Chief Judge Reed O’Connor included some important findings on privately made firearms, including direct citation in the opinion to NRA-ILA’s own Director of Litigation Joseph Greenlee, confirming that:

The Final Rule does not merely lack supporting analogues. It contradicts the actual historical tradition of personal gunsmithing. Self-manufacture of firearms in America was common and indeed foundational to establishing our Nation.

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.

NRA formally opposed the “frame or receiver” rule when it was published in 2022 and subsequently filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in the original case, Garland v. VanDerStok.

While the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the ATF has statutory room to regulate frames and receivers, this latest case asked whether ATF’s exercise of that particular authority passed constitutional muster. The answer to the first question was yes, but the answer to that second question was no.

That is what makes the ruling noteworthy. The Biden rule was written in such a vague and uncertain way that it threatened Second Amendment-protected conduct by leaving ordinary Americans unable to determine with any reasonable certainty what conduct was lawful and what might be criminal. It was the court’s conclusion that the Constitution demands better than the incomprehensible standards of the ATF regulation.  

While this latest court ruling provides party-specific relief rather than nationwide invalidation, the significance of the ruling extends beyond the parties. The decision puts a federal court squarely on record that ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule violates both the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment due process protections, providing a constitutional roadmap for future challenges. Since the earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision addressed ATF’s statutory authority and not these critical constitutional questions, O’Connors ruling in Defense Distributed ensures that a broader constitutional fight over the rule is just beginning.