Key facts
- A federal appeals court dismissed a lawsuit by California and the Giffords gun control advocacy group challenging a Biden administration rule on "ghost guns."
- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate sufficient harm from the rule's treatment of partially completed receivers.
- The rule in question pertains to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) classification of partially completed receivers for AR-15 type rifles.
- The court found that claims of harm were speculative and that most alleged harm predated the rule.
- This decision reverses a lower court ruling that had found the ATF's interpretation arbitrary and capricious.
A federal appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by California and the gun control advocacy group Giffords, which challenged a Biden administration rule aimed at curbing "ghost guns." The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 3-0 that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they suffered harm from the rule's provisions regarding partially completed receivers, which are components for firearms like AR-15 type rifles.
The lawsuit argued that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule was not strict enough, particularly in its treatment of these receivers. California and Giffords objected to the ATF classifying partially completed receivers as firearms only when sold with tools or jigs that could make them functional. They contended that this loophole allowed individuals to acquire components and build untraceable firearms.
Circuit Judge Eric Tung, appointed by President Donald Trump, wrote the opinion, stating that California did not prove the rule forced it to spend more on law enforcement training or its own ghost gun legislation. Similarly, Giffords did not show that the rule undermined its core mission or increased its costs in combating the proliferation of these weapons. Tung noted that most alleged harm predated the rule and that the plaintiffs were suing based on speculation that wrongdoers would exploit the alleged loophole.
This decision overturns a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, who had found the ATF's interpretation to be arbitrary and capricious. The case also follows a separate ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Texas, which found the 2022 rule violated the Second Amendment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court later reversed O'Connor's decision in March 2025, though on the grounds that the ATF had exceeded its authority in adopting the rule.