A federal judge has ruled that Delaware cannot ban law-abiding residents from possessing unserialized firearms or making them at home. The September 10 opinion in Rigby v. Jennings resolves the merits after a 2022 preliminary injunction.
U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment. She held that Delaware's possession ban and its manufacturing and assembly ban violate the Second Amendment both on their face and as applied to the plaintiffs. The case was brought by Delaware residents John Rigby and Alan Knight along with the Firearms Policy Coalition.
What The Court Decided
Delaware law prohibits possession of an unfinished frame or receiver without specified markings and possession of an “untraceable firearm.” It also prohibits an unlicensed person from manufacturing or assembling an untraceable firearm and from using a 3D printer to make a firearm, receiver, or major component. The provisions appear in 11 Del. C. Sections 1459A and 1463.
The court found that an unserialized firearm remains an “Arm” covered by the Second Amendment. Noreika also concluded that frames and receivers qualify because they are necessary for a firearm to function as intended. Serialization status, she wrote, does not change that constitutional analysis.
The manufacturing question required another step. The opinion treats making a firearm as one means of acquiring it and says the right to keep arms protects at least some ability to obtain them. Noreika also noted that an assembly ban could reach ordinary disassembly, cleaning, repair, and reassembly of a lawfully owned firearm.
Delaware then had to identify a sufficiently similar historical tradition supporting its bans. The state pointed to old restrictions on clubs and knives, trap guns, unusually large guns, and gunpowder storage. The court found those laws too different in purpose or operation to justify flat bans on possession and home manufacture.
What The Ruling Does Not Do
The decision does not erase every provision. The court rejected the Second Amendment challenge to commercial-distribution restrictions. It also rejected the plaintiffs' First Amendment claim involving digital instructions for 3D printing because their record did not establish whether the code was expressive or merely functional.
The opinion says an appropriate order will follow. It finds the requirements for a permanent injunction satisfied, but readers should check the eventual order and any appeal before assuming how the ruling applies to a particular situation. State and federal firearm laws outside the challenged provisions remain in effect.
We recently covered a different federal-court decision involving ATF's frame-or-receiver rule. That case concerned federal regulations and party-specific relief. Rigby concerns Delaware law and reaches a separate question: whether the state may prohibit otherwise lawful people from possessing and making unserialized firearms.
For Delaware gun owners, the headline is significant but the fine print still matters. This is a district-court decision with an implementing order and, quite possibly, an appeal still ahead. It is not individualized legal advice or permission to ignore any other state or federal restriction.
