Hap

Here's a link to the announcement on atf.gov. The actual steaming pile is linked about a screen down on the page, but there are some other references on the announcement page which may be useful. An overview is promised "soon" (perhaps after someone explains it to them). https://www.atf.gov/firearms/final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms

This freaking thing is over 400 pages. Leafing through it I have the impression that any gun I might want to sell will be a little pile of rust before I finish reading it. So far all I can tell is that the language seems designed to obscure, rather than clarify, DOJ’s intent.

How would IL's requirement to provide full access to medical records fare under this court's analysis?

I think the key words in McGlynn's statement were "truly reserved for military use" with the emphasis on "truly." To me that signals a pretty high degree of skepticism toward Easterbrook's wholesale consignment of anything he doesn't like to the category of military weapons. McGlynn may put a pretty tight fence around the concept of "reserved for military use." We'll know soon.

If Pritzker and his supporters are smart - big "if" there - they'll take the temporary W and leave it at that.

I fully expect all of this to be gone sometime next year. But I do like living in a society where people follow the law, so one way or the other I'll go along with it while it's still in force. It's just hard when the law is as full of gaps and inconsistencies as this one. I suppose the tax code is more complex, but you generally don't get hit with felony charges if you guess wrong on the meaning of one of the Form 1040 instructions.

They seem to want them registered as firearms, on account of the law generally considers the lower receiver to be a firearm (4473, background check, etc.). I don't know how they plan to distinguish between actual firearms and lower receivers which aren't part of a gun - the registration process certainly doesn't give them any way to do so - but, to paraphrase Prof. Vandermyde, it's not my job to fix these things.

Serialized.

It means they’ll hear oral arguments this year and issue a decision whenever they feel like it.

Doesn’t appear to be possible.

The only way to get a lower into the system appears to be as a firearm. You also have to call a rifle or a pistol, so if you bought it as unspecified, you also have to specify it when filling the thing out.

Unfortunately caliber is selected from a dropdown and multi isn’t one of the choices.

PICA bans lower receivers which can be used to build AR-15s or other rifles. The existing ISP process requires that these be declared as weapons, and that a caliber be specified. If a stripped lower is stamped as "multi" and has never been built out into a rifle or pistol with a specific caliber, there appears to be no way of complying with the law without providing false information to the ISP. To complete the process, you have to specify a caliber, and any caliber you choose is arguably wrong. This may sound like it's making a big deal out of nothing, but the ATF regularly revokes FFL licenses for less significant paperwork errors, so in the current environment it's a legitimate concern. My take is that this is either a gap in PICA, a gap in the emergency regs, or a bug in the implementation, but I have no idea which. ISP advice is to just go ahead and pick something. Any advice?

There are all kinds of paths that things could take from here but they all lead to the same destination. Stick a fork in the semiauto bans; they are done.

So, in response, she's going to arrest "the hundreds of violent offenders with outstanding warrants still on our streets..."? What on earth was stopping her from doing this last month, or the month before, or the month before that? Why is she just getting around to arresting these people now? What is different on September 14 from what was the case on August 14?