Folks, what is the post BATFE R2021-05 consensus on the legality of unfinished AK frames in 2023? I distinctly recall seeing some text in their ruling to the effect that only unbent flats of firearm designs like those of the H&K 90-series receivers would be considered unfinished receivers, but that bent frames would be, and for the life of me I can't recall if AKs were specifically called out.

Childer's, AOA, and AK-Builder pulled all of their flats, bents, and '80%'s off their webstores last August when the ruling took effect but they seem to have all relaunched their stocks. Is that just because of a single federal district ruling on the regulation originating from an almost biasedly conservative judge, or because indeed none of these unfinished AKM receivers violate the regulation upon their own merit?

For those who unfamiliar with AK frame states, kindly be reminded that there exist various states of finishing:

-Unbent, untreated flat with only essential holes drilled (NO FCG, NO trunnion holes)

-Bent flat with only essential holes drilled, no weldments made for bolt carrier rails

-Bent flat with only essential holes drilled, weldments made and surface heat-treated, center support riveted

-Bent flat with all holes drilled except FCG, weldments made and surface heat-treated, center support may or may not be riveted

The lattermost 2 are often considered the equivalent of what 80% AKM receivers would be if the parlance was adopted herein; the lattermost 3 however are all commonly referred to as 'blanks'.

The case example of ARs and striker-fired pistol frames made of polymer material have been copiously addressed by the ruling, as have some other milled receiver-style firearm platforms. The AKM remains open for discussion herein because it's somewhat of a grey area...

Bump fer answers.

IANAL,
The court ruling vacated ATF's decision that 80% receivers were full receivers and needed to be serialized/run through an FFL.
Being vacated means the ATF's decision was so flawed that it does not stand scrutiny and therefore is neither legal nor lawful.
In short, ATF's rule regarding 80% receivers is null and void in the entire United States.

Here is a summary of the decision: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2023/07/13/district-court-vacates-atf-80-receiver-rule-analysis/

Yes, this vacation of the rule is the case I referred to, but I think it should be no secret amongst anyone speculating, spectating, or even involved with the litigation itself that it will almost certainly be reversed upon appeal at some point in the case's upwards trajectory through the levels of jurisprudence.

So, is that one case the only thing upholding these vendors' relaunch of inventory? If so, candidly speaking that's quite a shame to see such money-hungry vendors ready to reopen on a legal whim yet close up shop as soon as it's legally infeasible, even if it means endangering customers (because if the rule were to be ruled against the favor of plaintiffs by the highest court involved, all purchases made after the rule took effect would be considered unlawful firearm transactions).

Though, I cannot verify if these manufacturers had these flats relisted for sale prior to this summer's ruling, so I won't speculate.