Legal/Law/Criminal Justice and Reform

Gun-Rights Group Asks Judge To Stick With Ruling That Tossed ‘Ghost Gun’ Ban

Wikimedia Commons/Public/Joe Gratz

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) asked a federal judge Thursday to reject Delaware’s request that she reconsider her ruling in a case involving so-called “ghost guns.”

In a ruling issued in September, United States District Judge Maryellen Noreika of the District of Delaware, a Trump appointee, said Delaware’s ban of the incomplete frames or receivers violated the Second Amendment. The FPC asked Noreika to reject the state’s request in a brief.

“The case is not moot because the statutory amendment did not cure the constitutional defects. There is no safe harbor for self-manufactured firearms, and the safe harbor for possession is limited to firearms possessed before the statute’s effective date,” FPC argued. “Moreover, the plain text of the safe harbor does not allow Plaintiffs Rigby and Knight to reacquire the firearms and components that they have already relinquished.”

“The deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected rights, including their right to self-manufacture, constitutes irreparable injury, and there is no public interest in enforcing unconstitutional laws,” FPC continued.

In its request, Delaware claimed that the ruling should be reconsidered since the serialization requirement was not a significant burden on gun rights.

“The Court committed clear error by finding the manufacture of firearms is protected by plain text of the Second Amendment. Even if a right to self-manufacture firearms were protected by the Second Amendment, the serialization requirement that the Enjoined Statutes place on all firearms, whether self-manufactured or not, represents at most an incidental burden that is constitutional at step one of Bruen,” Democratic Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings claimed in a motion filed in October.

In her September decision, Noreika said that the incomplete frames or receivers were still “arms” under the protection of the Second Amendment.

“Firearm frames and receivers are likewise ‘Arms’ under the Second Amendment,” Norieka wrote. “To start, under federal law, the term ‘‘firearm’ includes [] ‘the frame or receiver’’ of any gun. That indicates that unfinished frames and receivers are not functionally different from firearms and enjoy the same Second Amendment protections. Moreover, a frame or receiver is ‘necessary for [] a gun to function as intended,’ so in this Circuit, a frame or receiver constitutes an ‘Arm’ under the Second Amendment.”

The Biden administration’s regulations were initially upheld by the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision in 2025 because they were similar to certain restrictions on the First Amendment, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joining the three liberal justices to keep the regulations in place. However, efforts targeting the so-called “ghost guns” have had legal setbacks.

Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a ruling on Aug.17 in favor of Defense Distributed, accepting arguments that the “frame or receiver rule” enacted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was unconstitutional on both Fifth Amendment and Second Amendment grounds.

A three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Aug. 21 that a lawsuit brought by Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Giffords Law Center against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) demanding tighter regulations on so-called “ghost guns” should be dismissed for lack of standing.