1 of 5

Declaration of Cody Wilson

January 12, 2023

I, Cody R. Wilson, declare under penalty of perjury that the following statements are true 

and correct:

Defense Distributed

1. I co-founded Defense Distributed in 2012 and have directed Defense Distributed’s 

operations almost continuously since then. I am familiar with all significant aspects of 

Defense Distributed’s operations.

2. Defense Distributed is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of 

Texas and headquartered in Austin, Texas.

3. Defense Distributed is the first private defense contractor in service of the general public. 

Since 2012’s Wiki Weapon project, Defense Distributed has defined the state of the art in 

small scale, digital, personal gunsmithing technology.

4. Defense Distributed’s business activities include the production and e-commerce retail sale

of items that can be used in the process of self-manufacturing frames, receivers, and/or

fully functioning firearms. The products that Defense Distributed produces and sells 

include items marketed colloquially as “80 Percent Lowers” (aka frame-and-receiver 

“blanks” or “castings”), as well as tools and jigs that individuals can use in conjunction 

therewith to produce frames, receivers, and/or fully functioning firearms.

The new Final Rule

5. Congress in the Gun Control Act of 1968 defined “firearm” to mean “(A) any weapon 

(including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel 

a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; 

(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does 

not include an antique firearm.” 18 U.S.C. §921 (a)(2). Congress never defined the 

“firearm” term’s constituent phrase “frame or receiver.”

6. From March 1978 to August 2022, the Attorney General of the United States (through 

authority delegated to what is now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives) administered the Gun Control Act of 1968 by deeming the “firearm” 

definition’s “frame or receiver” phrase to mean “[t]hat part of a firearm which provides 

housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually 

threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” Title and Definition Changes, 43 Fed. 

Reg. 13,531, 13,537 (Mar. 31, 1978).

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 166-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID 3067
2 of 5

7. In August 2022, the Attorney General of the United States (through authority delegated to 

the ATF) administered the Gun Control Act of 1968 by giving the “firearm” definition’s 

“frame or receiver” phrase a new meaning, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and 

Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652 (Apr. 26, 2022) (effective Aug. 24, 2022) 

(codified at 27 C.F.R. pts. 447, 478, and 479) (hereinafter the new Final Rule).

8. The new Final Rule redefines “firearm” under the Gun Control Act as including, for the 

first time, unfinished receivers, unfinished frames, and frame and receiver parts kits. 

See 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) (defining “frame” and “receiver” as including “partially 

complete,” “disassembled,” or “nonfunctional” frames and receivers that are “designed to 

or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a 

frame or receiver,” and defining frame and receiver parts kits as “firearms” by providing 

that a “a frame or receiver parts kit” can constitute “a partially complete, disassembled, or 

nonfunctional frame or receiver”). 

Defense Distributed’s Operations under the new Final Rule

9. Defense Distributed has never engaged, does not now engage, and does not intend to 

engage in, the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in any Gun Control Act 

“firearm” as that term is defined by the Gun Control Act itself.

10. Defense Distributed has never engaged, does not now engage, and does not intend to 

engage in, the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in any Gun Control Act 

“firearm” as that term is defined by administrative actions taken prior to August 2022.

11. Defense Distributed’s business viability depends on its ability to deal in unfinished 

receivers, unfinished frames, and frame and receiver parts kits that (1) are not Gun Control 

Act “firearms” under the Gun Control Act itself, and (2) are not Gun Control Act “firearms” 

under administrative actions taken prior to August 2022, but that (3) are defined for the 

first time ever as Gun Control Act “firearms” by the new Final Rule.

12. Until the Agencies promulgated the new Final Rule, a critical amount of Defense 

Distributed’s business consisted of dealing in (manufacturing, selling, delivering, shipping, 

transporting, and receiving) unfinished receivers, unfinished frames, and frame and 

receiver parts kits that (1) are not Gun Control Act “firearms” under the Gun Control Act 

itself, and (2) are not Gun Control Act “firearms” under administrative actions taken prior 

to August 2022, but that (3) are defined for the first time ever as Gun Control Act 

“firearms” by the new Final Rule.

a) The Gun Control Act itself makes clear that the unfinished receivers, unfinished 

frames, and frame and receiver parts kits Defense Distributed dealt are not Gun 

Control Act “firearms.” Likewise, ATF classification letters issued before August 

2022 also made clear that the unfinished receivers, unfinished frames, and frame 

and receiver parts kits Defense Distributed dealt are not Gun Control Act 

“firearms.” 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 166-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID 3068
3 of 5

b) Under these authorities, unfinished frames and receivers are, by definition, articles 

that may become frames or receivers if and only if additional processes sufficiently 

alter their material constitutions. Frame and receiver parts kits are, by definition,

kits containing non-frame or non-receiver articles that may become frames or 

receivers if and only if additional processes sufficiently alter their material 

constitutions. Those definitions accord with American common usage in the 

twentieth and twenty-first centuries. 

c) Hence, Defense Distributed sold these items through its website and shipped them

via the mail to persons in most states, including persons in the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Texas’s Forth Worth Division. 

d) For the time period at issue, Defense Distributed performed a reasonably precise 

accounting of sales for these items—those defined for the first time ever as Gun 

Control Act “firearms” by the new Final Rule—and showed that they comprised a 

critical percentage of monthly revenues (nearly 1/5).

13. Solely because of the Agencies’ new Final Rule, Defense Distributed ceased dealing in 

(manufacturing, selling, delivering, shipping, transporting, and receiving) unfinished 

receivers, unfinished frames, and frame and receiver parts kits that (1) are not Gun Control 

Act “firearms” under the Gun Control Act itself, and (2) are not Gun Control Act “firearms” 

under administrative actions taken prior to August 2022, but that (3) are defined for the 

first time ever as Gun Control Act “firearms” by the new Final Rule.

a) Because of the new Final Rule, Defense Distributed can no longer do business by 

dealing in the unfinished frames and receivers or frame and receiver part kits that 

are a critical aspect of its business. 

b) Even though the Gun Control Act itself makes clear that Defense Distributed’s 

unfinished receivers, unfinished frames, and frame and receiver parts kits are not

Gun Control Act “firearms,” and even though ATF classification letters issued 

before August 2022 also made clear that Defense Distributed’s unfinished 

receivers, unfinished frames, and frame and receiver parts kits are not Gun Control 

Act “firearms,” the new Final Rule and subsequent administrative actions have 

taken the position that these items are Gun Control Act “firearms.”

c) The new Final Rule itself deems the items at issue Gun Control Act “firearms.” 

See 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) (defining “frame” and “receiver” as including “partially 

complete,” “disassembled,” or “nonfunctional” frames and receivers that are 

“designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise 

converted to function as a frame or receiver,” and defining frame and receiver parts 

kits as “firearms” by providing that a “a frame or receiver parts kit” can constitute 

“a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver”). 

d) ATF actions further implementing the new Final Rule deem the items as issue Gun 

Control Act “firearms.” These include the ATF “Open Letter to All Federal 

Firearms Licensees” of December 27, 2022, which states the following:

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 166-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID 3069
4 of 5

e) Because of the new Final Rule’s unprecedented reclassification of unfinished 

receivers, unfinished frames, and frame and receiver parts kits, Defense Distributed 

and its customers faced a reasonable fear of criminal prosecution that caused 

Defense Distributed to cease dealing in these items.

14. Because of the new Final Rule’s unprecedented reclassification of unfinished receivers, 

unfinished frames, and frame and receiver parts kits, Defense Distributed has suffered 

immense damages that imminently threaten Defense Distributed’s continued existence, 

including but not limited to:

a) Lost revenues. To date, Defense Distributed’s lost revenue attributable to the 

new Final Rule’s unprecedented reclassification of unfinished receivers, 

unfinished frames, and frame and receiver parts kits amounts to at least $350,000.

b) Lost sales of complimentary products. Defense Distributed’s lost ability to deal 

in unfinished receivers, unfinished frames, and frame and receiver parts kits 

harms Defense Distributed ability to sell other complimentary products, such as 

jigs.

c) Lost reputation and good will. The new Final Rule also harms Defense 

Distributed’s business by scaring away customers Since the new Final Rule took 

effect, customers have been hesitant, confused, and fearful about purchasing 

Defense Distributed’s products, including those unaffected by the rule. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 166-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID 3070
5 of 5

Below are some examples of comments that Defense Distributed has received 

from customers and potential customers:

d) Vendor interruption. Because of the new Final Rule, vendors across Defense 

Distributed’s supply chain have refused to supply services the otherwise would. 

That includes payment processors, metal-treatment businesses, and other 

distributors. E-commerce companies have also started suggesting that they may

no longer be able to serve Defense Distributed.

e) Compliance costs. To date, Defense Distributed’s compliance costs attributable 

to the new Final Rule’s unprecedented reclassification of unfinished receivers, 

unfinished frames, and frame and receiver parts kits amount to $50,000 in direct 

compliance costs, which is apart from and in addition to the legal costs incurred 

in prosecuting the instant actin and obtaining preliminary legal advice about the 

Final Rule.

f) Defense Distributed has fixed operating costs—e.g., payroll and office rent. In 

the wake of the new Final Rule’s catastrophic effects on its business, Defense 

Distributed has frozen its additional hiring plans and shifted to trying its best to 

retain as many employees as possible while awaiting clarity on the new Final 

Rule’s lawfulness. 

15. Cumulatively, the new Final Rule’s effect on Defense Distributed is devastating. With the 

new Final Rule in force, Defense Distributed has severely limited products, customers, 

business relationships, and cash. Without injunctive relief, the new Final Rule will likely 

force Defense Distributed to lay workforce, refund customers, and dissolve before any of 

the lawsuits challenging the new Final Rule yield a final judgment. The new Final Rule 

will destroy Defense Distributed, soon, unless the government is enjoined from enforcing 

the new Final Rule against it and its customers. 

16. I executed this declaration on January 12, 2023.

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 166-1 Filed 01/12/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID 3071