Another Consequence of Bruen

 Rigby v. Jennings (D.Del. 2026). Delaware banned ghost manufacture, assembly, possession, sale, and digital instructions for making them. Digital instruction ban constitutional although I notice the ban seems pretty narrowly focused:

And that may very well be because § 1463(c)(2) is framed in functional terms, i.e., it is limited to computer files or code “that may be used to program a 3 dimensional printer to manufacture or produce a firearm, firearm receiver or major component of a firearm.”

That seems to not prohibit gCode for operating a CNC mill.

With that, the Possession Ban concerns “Arms,” and because it prohibits keeping arms and applies to all members of the political community, it is presumptively unconstitutional at Bruen’s first step.  Wolford, 146 S. Ct. 2043-44.

Distribution ban:

The problem there is that the Distribution Ban does not regulate self manufacturing firearms and Plaintiffs have offered no evidence that any of these regulations limit their access to the items and materials necessary to self-manufacture firearms; all they provided was attorney argument.  See Rigby, 630 F. Supp. 3d at 614 (“Attorney argument is not evidence.”).  The Distribution Ban passes under Bruen’s first step.  

Manufacturing and Assembly ban:

But prohibiting possession of firearms that are currently lawfully owned or future manufacturing and assembly of the same does place restrictions on keeping and bearing firearms.  So the Possession and Manufacturing and Assembly Bans fail at Bruen’s first step.