Case Summary

Americans have always valued ingenuity and self-sufficiency over the culture of control. That is never more apparent than with our natural right to self-defense—a right we enjoy separate and apart from any government or governmental entity. Americans also have the right to self-manufacture those arms that they deem necessary to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property. But a handful of progressive cities and gun control activists want to end that practice.   

Join the Fight

Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.

Donate Now



U.S. District Court Southern District of New York

Case History

In August 2020, Syracuse, NY; San Jose, CA; Chicago, IL; and Columbia, SC; as well as two of Everytown’s legal funds (Petitioners), sued the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), claiming the ATF has violated the Administrative Procedure Act by employing an objective test based on the actual manufacturing process involved to determine if an item is considered a “firearm” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. In reality, these cities and gun control groups want to substitute their own definition for that of the ATF, by using inflammatory terms and demonizing the individual manufacture of personal-use firearms. 

People have been crafting and customizing personal firearms since before the Revolutionary Era—long before protection of the right to keep and bear those arms was written into the U.S. Constitution under the Second Amendment. The mass production of arms that came later,  like the mass production of nearly everything else, meant that fewer Americans needed to build their own arms—but technological developments don’t change the rights of all Americans.  

What gun owners view as a virtue, gun-control advocates have come to see as a vice, arguing that the non-regulation of self-made and hand-crafted weapons hampers the apprehension of criminals and opens a “loophole” that gangs will exploit to flood the black market.  

The objects at issue in this case are often colloquially referred to as “receiver blanks,” “frame blanks,” “partially-manufactured frames,” “partially-manufactured receivers,” “80% frames,” “80% receivers,” “unfinished frames,” or “unfinished receivers.” While these objects vary widely, what they all have in common is that they are not “firearms” as defined by the Gun Control Act, nor can they be readily converted into firearms. Instead, just like a raw block of aluminum in the hands of a machinist, individuals can fully manufacture firearms from these non-firearm objects using their own experience, know-how, and machining equipment. Because they are not firearms, the ATF and the federal government lack any authority to regulate them as such.   

But gun-control activists want to substitute their own interpretation for that of the ATF’s. Because these objects are not firearms, they lack the serial numbers that are affixed to an actual, mass-produced firearm’s frame or receiver, and can be sent directly to purchasers. Critics deceitfully and derogatorily dub them “ghost guns” in an attempt to sway public passions and pressure the federal government into a regulatory overreaction.   

Petitioners in this case are attempting to stop Americans from building and customizing certain types of legal of firearms as they see fit, for personal use, free from government intrusion into that process. They want to force the ATF to regulate raw materials of all kinds—materials that may possibly be used to manufacture a firearm in the future—simply because individuals, through their own knowledge, skill, and ingenuity, can manufacture them into firearms for personal use. This would allow a handful of progressive cities to impose a national definition of what constitutes a “firearm” on every city and state in the U.S.  

“Since our nation’s founding, Americans have self-manufactured their own firearms at home,” said MSLF client Zachary Fort. “The ability to exercise one’s rights privately, without government intrusion, is a cornerstone of a free society. To arbitrarily change the definition of a firearm, to include non-firearm objects, would be a gross overreach of government and could expose Americans to criminal liability.”

Mountain States Legal Foundation is intervening in the case on behalf of its clients, Zachary Fort, Frederick Barton, 80% Arms, and Firearms Policy Coalition, in an effort to preserve the natural right and traditional freedom of self-sufficient Americans to legally build firearms for personal use free from undue (and unconstitutional) government interference, surveillance, and regulatory control. 

“For decades, the ATF has enforced a bright-line delineation as to when an object becomes a ‘firearm’ under the Gun Control Act,” said attorney Adam Kraut, Firearms Policy Coalition’s Director of Legal Strategy.

Forcing a change to ATF’s definition of what constitutes a firearm would undoubtedly chill Americans’ exercise of their natural, unalienable, fundamental right to keep and bear arms, including individual manufacture of arms for personal use.

Case Documents
Explore More

A Pivotal 90 Days in the Fight for Gun Rights

This January, as the Biden-Harris administration took over, gun sales were up 80 percent from the same time last year. Clearly, Americans are determined not to be disarmed. And the Center to Keep and Bear Arms is already taking this fight to the highest level.

Get the latest updates from MSLF
News Updates