While the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the ATF has statutory room to regulate frames and receivers, Defense Distributed v. Blanche 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’Connor’s ruling in Defense Distributed ensures that a broader constitutional fight over the rule is just beginning.
— NRA-ILA in SCOTUS Statutory Ruling Not the Final Word on Biden-Era “Frame or Receiver” Rule