Federal judge strikes down ATF 'ghost gun' rule for 3D printed parts — says restrictions violate Fifth Amendment and historical tradition of DIY gunsmithing

3D Printed Ghost guns
(Image credit: Getty Images)

Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas just shot down an ATF ruling requiring part kits that can readily be converted into functional weapons, frames or receivers, to be subject to the same regulations as complete guns. The case has a dramatic impact on the 3D printer market, as several states, including California, Colorado, New York, and Washington State, are taking action against ghost guns by putting bans and limitations on 3D printers. According to The Hill, the judge said that the rule “contradicts the actual historical tradition of personal gunsmithing” and its vagueness violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

“After the Revolutionary War, ‘gunsmithing was a universal need in early America, [and] many early Americans who were professionals in other occupations engaged in gunsmithing as an additional occupation or hobby.’ Id. at 66. ‘Regulations on self-built arms are not longstanding. In fact, there were no restrictions on the manufacture of arms for personal use in America during the seventeenth, eighteenth, or nineteenth centuries.’ Id. at 78. Thus, the Court cannot conclude that the Final Rule’s imposition of ambiguous and far-reaching regulations, which would restrict access to component parts thereby inhibiting home gunsmithing, comports with the Second Amendment,” O’Connor wrote in his legal opinion [PDF].

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

  • usertests
    Are 3D-printed guns part of the "historical tradition of personal gunsmithing"?
    They are now.
    Reply
  • Tanakoi
    usertests said:
    They are now.
    When the Constitution was written, nearly all firearms were hand-made. Whether you make a gun part with a hammer and anvil or a 3D printer hardly changes the legality.
    Reply
  • usertests
    Tanakoi said:
    When the Constitution was written, nearly all firearms were hand-made. Whether you make a gun part with a hammer and anvil or a 3D printer hardly changes the legality.
    What I meant is that the 3D printed gun is a new American tradition.
    Reply
  • chaos215bar2
    Tanakoi said:
    When the Constitution was written, nearly all firearms were hand-made. Whether you make a gun part with a hammer and anvil or a 3D printer hardly changes the legality.
    And besides, these 3D printer laws are an utterly asinine attempt by state governments to reach into people's homes and legislate how their personal devices work and who they share data with regardless of whether said person has any intent of building their own firearms.

    I see these laws popping up in states controlled by Democrats as the flip side of some of the worst to come out of Republican-lead states. Just as the state has no business legislating what people do in their own bedrooms or entering into private medical conversations, it similarly should not be forcing restrictions on how manufacturing tools owned by law abiding citizens are allowed to operate, or what personal data their OS requests, for that matter.

    Between AB-2047 and AB-1043, in the span of less than a year, California looks set to outlaw both open source 3D printers and open source operating systems, literally legislating the open ecosystems that heavily contributed to the computing revolution of the past 30 years and now the brand new manufacturing tech boom out of existence.

    It's hard to overstate just how utterly stupid both of these laws are. California already had to walk back OS age verification somewhat after realizing they were about to legislate swaths of the tech industry they're so proud of out of existence. Hopefully they learn a similar lesson with the 3D printing bill which looks set to be signed into law.
    Reply
  • Reechard
    We keep getting told AI is the new tool and we absolutely have to use it because if we don't we will fall behind the curve or whatever excuse they use to inundate us with the garbage....

    You can build AK-47s all day long with a sheet metal bending jig and spot welder, all of which can be had af Harbor Freight for less than a 3d printer, but nobody is legislating hand presses and spot welders.
    Reply
  • TechieTwo
    I don't support printed guns for safety reasons but I hope that the judicial systems adds an additional 10 years on to prison sentences for those who use them in crimes.
    Reply
  • Rand0m_Guy
    You guys are awesome, I wwwas expecting the exact opposite kind of comments, but you all are my people apparently!

    Banning a 3d printed gun part because it's "not historical" would be akin to banning free speech from social media because its "not historical".
    Reply
  • Rand0m_Guy
    TechieTwo said:
    I don't support printed guns for safety reasons but I hope that the judicial systems adds an additional 10 years on to prison sentences for those who use them in crimes.
    Why, what if someone builds the part by hand in their garage instead of a 3d printer, still 10 years? Whats the difference other than the tool used to build it?

    but if I drive down the street to the store and buy the part its suddenly ok? Come on, use some common sense.
    Reply
  • tosgravely
    As someone who’s been affected by this personally, I’d say discretely printing weapons that can pass through security checkpoints without worry isn’t what our forefathers had intended. Imagine what they’d actually think about an act so cowardly? Blood is on this judges hands, 🙌 🩸
    Reply
  • usertests
    tosgravely said:
    I’d say discretely printing weapons that can pass through security checkpoints without worry isn’t what our forefathers had intended.
    We can intend to reach even greater heights of freedom than our forefathers intended.
    Reply