Oh Shoot

  Well, okay, but "sex" and "race" have equal protection under federal law, but so far sexual orientation does not.   - OS

  Our own SCOTUS justices have of course legislated from the bench on close to perfect regularity as to political party philosophy since its inception.   - OS

  Ironically, the Manchin-Toomey background check thing would have relaxed all that big time, all the way to first cousins or some such, and over state lines, all without 4473.   - OS

  I can't find anything that says discrimination due to sexual orientation is illegal on federal level under any circumstances except in workplace. Sex and sexual orientation are not the same thing.   - OS

  Exactly. And the baker may have been breaking it. Obviously, the judge thinks so.   - OS

  Nonetheless, they may be very valid under Colorado law, nobody here really knows.   - OS

  Wow, you are prescient, see last post. :)   - OS

  Well, people talk a lot about Marshal Law, too. :)   - OS

  Me too, since it's the logical statement  --  and that's the way you'll always see it in print, from educated sources, anyway.   "I could care less", means you actually do care at least somewhat.   - OS

  The question is whether the gay folks were the subject of unlawful discrimination.   As far as this case is concerned, by the way, I can't find that anywhere but as employees that gay folks have any particular basis to claim discrimination under federal law. However, states vary widely .. I think y'all might want to keep in mind this seems to have been a Colorado state judge's ruling, not a federal one.   - OS

  I think his point is that the proper saying is "I could not care less" to signify that you don't care at all about something.   - OS

  How far do you want to take that POV of the "rights" of one's religious convictions?  Meaning, for example, public praying and reciting the Lord's Prayer in schools as a low level example, or parents not allowing medical treatment for their kids and fathers maiming or killing their "infidel" daughters as extreme ones.   Is it only a matter of degree, or only pertinent to a particular religion, or just what?   Therein lies the struggle within the judiciary, trying to apply consistent logic to same tendencies, regardless of degree of the issue.   - OS

  Yeah, maybe okay to possess, dunno.   Seems in Kali, you can only build an AR pistol from 80% lower and it must start as single shot pistol, then be registered, then can be converted to 10 round "fixed" ("bullet button"). Or you can buy a complete single shot AR pistol manufactured in Kali and do same. Probably even more hoops, dunno.   - OS

  Federally, the USC (the statutes as codified) and the CFR (administrative rules for the statutes) has been the system since 1938.   CFRs can be changed, but more often than not, there are official "rulings" about them and the CFRs stand as written.   As far as this "pistol/rifle/pistol" and "constructive possession" topic, the "ruling" was by SCOTUS in 1992 and of course not subject to ATF "reinterpretation".  The BATF didn't come clean and publish their own ruling echoing it until summer of 2012, keeping to its "keep 'em guessing" culture for all those years.   - OS

  You realize that what's engraved on a lower has zero legal significance, either federally or AFAIK under any state's law either?   The only engraving that has meaning is serial number (required since 1968 for commercially manufactured firearms) and NFA engraving required if you do tax stamp.   - OS

  By federal law, 4473 info is not to be kept by ATF after background check. In reality, who knows?   Of course, ATF can go see a 4473 at FFL's biz any time they want.   Also, when a FFL goes out of biz, all 4473s ARE sent to BATF, and they DO keep them, legally, and have been digitizing them for years, complete with searchability. Saw a special not long ago where they had to lease a separate building for storage of all the paper 4473s waiting for the scanning.   - OS

  Don't see anything about the stock issue, and don't know what "conflict" you speak of. By ATF's own definitions, a stock has no bearing on classification of a firearm without a barrel being attached at same time.   Also, since the 4473 changed in 8/2008, the directions plainly state that even if a receiver can only be made into a rifle, it is still to be transferred as "other firearm".   At any rate, what's on 4473 is not legally definitive at all. A FFL's mistaken classification does not make you guilty of anything. The only fact is that the firearm must have not originally been configured as a rifle, and it takes more than a 4473 to prove that. Indeed, before 2008, most all AR receivers were transferred as "long gun" by common practice, since "other firearm" was not an option -- but that doesn't mean you couldn't make a pistol from them initially as per SCOTUS ruling in 1992.   If a FFL's choice of firearm type were legally binding, would mean that taking a lower that had first been configured as a rifle, reselling it as lower only, and checking "other firearm" on 4473 would make it legal to make that lower into a pistol -- which of course is not the case, and the fact the FFL checked "other firearm" as required by the 4473 directions has no bearing on your legality of making a pistol from that lower.   - OS

  Technical things like that are almost always an "add on" charge, once you're under the radar for something else.   The 4473 only "suggests" that there may be an impropriety of some sort, would have to be supported by manufacturer/distributor info as the config, and also FFLs bound book as to config sold in, etc.   As far as your taking a virgin lower and being charged for having made a rifle before a pistol, would take some extraordinary evidence of some sort of course. Like maybe a snitch friend or two who owed ATF dues, eh?   - OS

  That's correct, but not what you said in previous post. Specifically, an AK barrel change is no more "permanent" than an AR one just because it's not as easily accomplished. Unless you just want it to become the spec on record for some reason or other.   - OS

  Hobby Lobby felt same about ObamaCare and contraceptives, sought an injunction,  SCOTUS said no. Now in new suit has been granted a temporary injunction to not comply by US District court, we'll see.   Seems Catholic based orgs have not been granted the same injunctions for same issue, though, but not sure, haven't kept up with that.   - OS

  If an FFL erroneously marks transfer of a virgin lower as "long gun" on 4473, his screw up does not make it illegal for you to make a pistol from it.  And yes, there are still idiot FFLs that will not put "other firearm" on the 4473, in direct opposition to ATF instructions -- you can see folks posting about it all the time on arfcom pistols forum.   Note that "other firearm" was not even an option until 8/2008 on the 4473. But of course it was still legal to build pistols from lowers before 2008 regardless of what was on the 4473, as long as the lower was indeed never first built as a rifle.   Note also, to further complicate things, that even used lowers which were indeed first built as rifles, if transferred used as lower only, are still to be marked "other firearm" on 4473, regardless of their history (which the FFL would not know anyway). A completed lower, even with a stock on it, is still to be transferred on 4473 as "other firearm" on question 18 and "receiver" on question 29, as a firearm cannot be a "long gun" or "handgun" without a barrel. If it indeed did not start life in rifle config, it is still legal to be made into a pistol.   - OS

  No idea, bro. Never heard of the outfit, no detailed specs given for critical parts like barrel, bolt, etc.   In general, seems weird to buy AR stuff from outfit in one of the most firearm restrictive states in US, where I'm not sure this kit is even legal for a Californian to possess?   - OS

  I don't see how the degree of difficulty in changing the config matters one whit. There's no "degree of difficulty" rule anywhere.   The only time it needs to be in the config  as registered is if transferring it in its NFA config , where the transferring FFL is supposed to note that it's the same as registered.   - OS

  Not upgrade, different caliber. And "chrome moly" is not "chrome lined", btw, if you were thinking that was the "upgrade".   - OS

  Just a note: Long guns are no different than handguns -- private transfer between residents of different states are illegal regardless of where they occur.   - OS