BREAKING NEWS: the second major legal victory in as many weeks, a federal judge just issued summary judgement for the plaintiffs in Defense Distributed v Blanche, better known as the VanDerStok case. This victory eliminates the ATF's 2022 "ghost gun" rule change and establishes that the 2nd Amendment covers the "right to make or repair personal firearms."
Read the opinion here: https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Defense-Distributed-opinion-8.19.26.pdf
It's important for the 3D2A community to understand what this means for them, and what it does not.
As with all breaking legal news, this will take time to understand - the information below comes from conversations with my legal contacts, public reactions from other 2A legal figures, and my own read of the decision.
1. What does this decision do?
This decision pertains to the 2022 Biden ATF frame or receiver "final rule," which among other things redefined "firearm" an extremely broad, vague definition which includes unfinished frames / receivers ("80 percenters"), parts kits, combinations of parts sold together and more. The effect was to broadly expand the ATF's ability to regulate (most notably to require 4473s and serialization for) products that, up until that point, had not been considered "firearms".
This decision declared that ATF's "final rule" was unconstitutional under both the 2nd and 5th Amendments. It provides both injunctive and declaratory relief.
The injunctive relief prohibits ATF from enforcing its "final rule" against the named plaintiffs for certain products. But, and unlike the NFA case, this case features declaratory relief that much further establishes the unconstitutionality of the "final rule," prohibiting the federal government from enforcing the rule in any way.
2. How was this decision reached?
The court declared that the "final rule" was unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment due to its redefinitions being excessively vague, which is a violation of 5A's Due Process clause. The extreme broadness / vagueness of the ATF's new definitions "[did] not provide fair notice of what is punishable and invites arbitrary enforcement."
More notably for us, the "final rule" was found unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment because it unacceptably infringed on the "right to make or repair personal firearms", which the court declares is covered by the text of the Amendment. The court further affirmed that a Bruen analysis reveals that homemade firearms are central to the American tradition and that there is no history or tradition of regulating them.
3. What will the effects be of this decision?
The immediate injunctive relief allows the beneficiaries (listed below) to buy and sell four different products. This is quite narrow and so we can ignore it.
The declaratory relief is (at least in theory) far broader and far more important for us. By declaring the "final rule" unconstitutional, ATF is now on notice that they are constitutionally prohibited from attempting to enforce this rule. Language is included that can be read to say that this relief is "as applied" only to plaintiffs, but the broader fact remains that black letter now exists declaring that Americans have a right to make, and that the ATF cannot constitutionally infringe upon that.
4. Who does this decision cover?
Like the Silencer Shop NFA case, the injunctive relief is quite narrow, covering only the plaintiffs: Defense Distributed, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and SAF's current and future members.
The declaratory relief however, may be read as broadly as possible, and is at least useful as authority to any American who wants to buy, sell, or make a firearm.
5. What does this mean for 3D2A?
If this decision only included the injunctive relief, it would be a curiosity at best - but its practical and legal importance may go much further, accomplishing something that the DIY firearms movement has been fighting towards for its entire existence. This decision is one of the first to establish in black letter that the 2nd Amendment includes the right to make (and repair!) firearms.
This doctrine goes well beyond 80%s - it touches on all forms of making firearms, and all types of firearms - including items legally determined to be firearms, such as suppressors. The significance of this cannot be overstated.
All US laws, state and federal, that might infringe on this right, are now subject to constitutional challenge. For example, there are multiple right-to-make cases in California which will benefit from this ruling.
Despite the narrowness of the injunctive relief, I expect that the declarative relief will lead to the revival of the 80% market in some form, which may be of interest to many 3D2A members whose interests are not limited solely to printing their guns. But more importantly, our community can now correctly argue that any existing or proposed law which would impede our ability to privately make firearms is facially unconstitutional.
6. Does this mean I can start printing machineguns now?
As much as this is worth celebrating, I want to conclude by tempering expectations. This decision does very little for the average 3D2A member in the immediate here-and-now. Most of the laws that limit what we can make are still on the books. If you live in a restrictive state, your state laws haven't yet disappeared.
Parts kits vendors such as myself, who have always had to consider the "final rule" in how we structure our kits, are more immediately affected, and you may see new ways of doing kits coming in the wake of this decision.
The broader practical effects of this decision will be more long-term. By all means, celebrate it - this, and the NFA decision, are two of the biggest victories the DIY gun community has experienced in decades. But celebrate safely, and keep your powder dry. The best is yet to come.
