Since you can legally purchase a long gun from a dealer in another state, maybe make the purchase of the serialized receiver in Texas, and build it there on a visit. There's no transfer across state lines then, right? Our "freedom" sure is pretty stupid sometimes. I mean, you can legally gift a firearm from father to son, so the transfer of ownership from one person to another is not the issue, just the line on the map. But if the part qualifying as a "firearm" is bought in Texas, assembled in Texas, and subsequently "resides" in Texas without ever having been to Louisiana, would it really matter? Sometimes, getting to the right answer is more important than the "just $20 for a transfer" safe bet to satisfy the government. How ridiculous is it that this has to be nitpicked and debated as to whether one solution or another is a "workaround?" I know I'm preaching to the choir here when I state the obvious, that a father should be able to give his son a firearm as a gift no matter where they reside, and it's none of the gubmint's business. We shouldn't have to pay a fee to stay on the right side of the law when a right is guaranteed by the Constitution. How meaningful is Constitutional Carry going to be if we get it when we still have so many restrictions on Constitutional Ownership? I know I'm ranting now, but it really peeves me that this has to be such an issue. It's downright ludicrous that such conditions exist!