Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: let military spouses buy guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476

    let military spouses buy guns

    Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) on Tuesday introduced legislation that would let military spouses buy handguns in the state where their husbands and wives are on permanent duty.

    the Gun Control Act of 1968 only allows people to buy firearms in the state where they legally reside. That means if a family legally resides in one state, but the service member spouse is on duty in another state, the spouse of that service member cannot legally buy a gun.

    http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/05...t/#more-966692
    Last edited by oldbanger; 05-14-2015 at 10:40 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Jefferson County, CO
    Posts
    260
    This strikes me as odd. I was always led to believe that I "resided" in whatever state I was stationed in. Some items were done differently, like taxes - we (military) paid taxes based on our home of record (in my case, Colorado).

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by jackrockblc View Post
    This strikes me as odd. I was always led to believe that I "resided" in whatever state I was stationed in. ...
    When you are stationed somewhere, you have papers to that effect. Does your spouse?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Especially as a military brat, I support the effort, but I would even more support repeal of the '68 GCA.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I have not bothered to look, just so I could ask this question:

    Isn't the exception for TDY as opposed to PCS?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    When you are stationed somewhere, you have papers to that effect. Does your spouse?
    mac, et al., the olde archaic mentality still exists "if the services wanted you to have a spouse, they would have issued you one!"

    however, not sure what the problem is as the military member can purchase a firearm for their partner (gift) at their PCS location or i believe...use the base/post exchange and purchase one there if sold at that facility.

    and the member is afforded the 'blessing' with their PCS orders of immediately falling into the resident benefit of what ever place they service member is locat

    TDY does not grant any resident benefit per se.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    It seems to depend on the spouse and their job. My wife is a stay at home mom, but I've heard of other spouses needing to change their residency to the state that they're in for job reasons. In regards to our orders covering them, I've never had a place accept my orders for my wife to buy a gun even though they're listed on the orders.

    To me the bigger issue is the law that requires this. Why can we only buy handguns in the state that we're a resident of? I still don't get how they can twist regulation to mean prohibition, which is effectively what the law does; prohibits out-of-staters from buying such guns.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    Just repeal the while damn thing. Just because I'm on vacation doesn't mean I should be limited on what and where I spend my money. Why is a military spouse afforded more rights than I? What happened to equal protection under the law? Why am I a second class citizen because I'm in sales as opposed to soldiering?

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by mustangkiller View Post
    Just repeal the while damn thing. Just because I'm on vacation doesn't mean I should be limited on what and where I spend my money. Why is a military spouse afforded more rights than I? What happened to equal protection under the law? Why am I a second class citizen because I'm in sales as opposed to soldiering?
    Hear hear!

  10. #10
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476

    Military Spouses Threatened by ISIS Affiliate on Twitter, Facebook

    I believe that the proposed legislation that would let military spouses buy handguns in the state where their husbands and wives are on permanent duty is necessary because

    the military member can be TDY'ed away and is not available to "purchase a firearm for their partner (gift) at their PCS location".

    A group claiming to be affiliated with the ISIS militant group hacked the Military Spouses of Strength Twitter account
    and sent threats to a group of military spouses on Twitter and Facebook.

    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...er-facebo.html

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    The average American is much more likely to be a victim of domestic criminals than military spouses are of ISIS.

    If we're going to modify gun laws to allow Americans to defend themselves, this bill is a complete waste of time. And it creates further privileges for those who serve government.

    Unacceptable.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    The average American is much more likely to be a victim of domestic criminals than military spouses are of ISIS.

    If we're going to modify gun laws to allow Americans to defend themselves, this bill is a complete waste of time. And it creates further privileges for those who serve government.

    Unacceptable.
    Perhaps. Although another take would be that it is yet another incremental move towards removing restrictions. Whatever the law is, if you can get everyone exempted from the stupid thing it eventually has no teeth or meaning.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    The average American is much more likely to be a victim of domestic criminals than military spouses are of ISIS.

    If we're going to modify gun laws to allow Americans to defend themselves, this bill is a complete waste of time. And it creates further privileges for those who serve government.

    Unacceptable.
    Some animals are more equal.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by deepdiver View Post
    Perhaps. Although another take would be that it is yet another incremental move towards removing restrictions. Whatever the law is, if you can get everyone exempted from the stupid thing it eventually has no teeth or meaning.
    I can see the good intent. How has that worked for letting cops have extra special rights? Has that spread to us yet?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Isn't the spouse covered by the first sentence?

    The State of residence is the State in which an individual is present; the individual also must have an intention of making a home in that State. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty is a resident of the State in which his or her permanent duty station is located. If a member of the Armed Forces maintains a home in one State and the member’s permanent duty station is in a nearby State to which he or she commutes each day, then the member has two States of residence and may purchase a firearm in either the State where the duty station is located or the State where the home is maintained. An alien who is legally in the United States is considered to be a resident of a State only if the alien is residing in that State and has resided in that State continuously for a period of at least 90 days prior to the date of sale of the firearm. See also Item 5, “Sales to Aliens in the United States,” in the General Information section of this publication.

    [18 U.S.C. 921(b), 922(a) (3), and 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 478.11]
    Last edited by Jeff Hayes; 05-19-2015 at 08:40 PM.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Isn't the spouse covered by the first sentence?

    The State of residence is the State in which an individual is present; the individual also must have an intention of making a home in that State. ...
    No. If the spouse intended to make their home in the new state, they would transfer their driver's license and other IDs to that new state, and would then not need an Armed Forces spouse exception.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  17. #17
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,865
    jeff, the service member's partner, while put on PCS orders for travel authorization purposes and are not covered by the passage you quoted. you will notice it refers to the 'member' and not ancillary individuals.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by oldbanger View Post
    Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.) on Tuesday introduced legislation that would let military spouses buy handguns in the state where their husbands and wives are on permanent duty.
    State laws vary with respect to how much grace time the spouses of military members have before they are required to obtain a state drivers license. The shortest time in my experience was 30 days, whereas 90 days was the longest. That's out of nine states in which I've had experience, both as a Navy brat as well as a member of the Air Force.

    However, to establish residency, all a military spouse needs for the vast majority of states is a copy of the service member's orders. Some states still require a lease or mortgage agreement. All these documents are available either immediately upon arriving in the state or within the first month. Heck, you don't have to wait 90 days to get your local driver's license. Get it in the first week. That and a hotel receipt is sufficient to determine eligibility in all 50 states, at which point, you're well within the Gun Control Act of 1968.

    the Gun Control Act of 1968 only allows people to buy firearms in the state where they legally reside. That means if a family legally resides in one state, but the service member spouse is on duty in another state, the spouse of that service member cannot legally buy a gun.
    Not true. First, I think you meant to say, "if a family legally resides in one state, but the service member is on duty in another state, the spouse of that service member cannot legally buy a gun." Otherwise, you're talking about the same person.

    Regardless, service members are covered by their orders and state laws, nearly all of which allow the service member to be considered a "resident" for the purpose of buying a firearm. Meanwhile, their spouses can establish residency based on the service members orders (nearly all states) or the traditional means of a new drivers license and a copy of a rental agreement, mortgage, or hotel bill.

    Bottom line: While the proposed law might make things more convenient, it's not within the Constitutional purview of the federal government to interfere with powers reserved to the states. It is for this very reason that this issue is already covered by state laws, and has been for decades.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    When I first commented on this I had forgotten a bit of Missouri statute which, in the context of this thread, I am rather proud of my state for codifying (emphasis mine):

    2. A concealed carry permit issued pursuant to subsection 7 of this section shall be issued by the sheriff or his or her designee of the county or city in which the applicant resides, if the applicant:

    (1) Is at least nineteen** years of age, is a citizen or permanent resident of the United States and either:

    (a) Has assumed residency in this state; or

    (b) Is a member of the Armed Forces stationed in Missouri, or the spouse of such member of the military;
    Last edited by deepdiver; 05-28-2015 at 08:00 PM. Reason: ETA for formatting to clarify
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    No. If the spouse intended to make their home in the new state, they would transfer their driver's license and other IDs to that new state, and would then not need an Armed Forces spouse exception.
    Mac as you know I live in two states the ATF considers me a resident of Arizona when I am living there and a resident of Washington when I am living there. I can purchase firearms in both states. There is no requirement to only have one residence in USC 18 921 or 922.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    jeff, the service member's partner, while put on PCS orders for travel authorization purposes and are not covered by the passage you quoted. you will notice it refers to the 'member' and not ancillary individuals.

    ipse
    The first sentence stands alone does it not?

    "The State of residence is the State in which an individual is present; the individual also must have an intention of making a home in that State."
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    I found the ATF clarification I am basing my opinion on, here is the paragraph

    ATF has previously addressed the eligibility of individuals to acquire firearms who
    maintain residences in more than one State. Federal regulations at 27 CFR 478.11
    (definition of State of Residence), Example 2, clarify that a U.S. citizen with homes in two
    States may, during the period of time the person actually resides in a particular State,
    purchase a firearm in that State. See also ATF Publication 5300.4 (2005), Question and
    Answer B12, page 179. Similarly, in ATF Ruling 80-21 (ATFB 1980-4, 25), ATF held
    that, during the time college students actually reside in a college dormitory or at an offcampus
    location, they are considered residents of the State where the on-campus or offcampus
    housing is located.

    Here is the link to the entire document

    https://www.atf.gov/file/55496/download
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Jeff -

    Does not the person desiring to purchase a firearm need to present 2 forms of ID to the FFL? And does not one of those need to demonstrate residence? Utility bills, leases, and voter registration IDs are the most commonly offered forms of proof of residency. So unless the spouse of the military member has their name on the lease or the utility bill they still will not meet the residency requirement.

    Did I miss/mess up somewhere on this?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Jeff -

    Does not the person desiring to purchase a firearm need to present 2 forms of ID to the FFL? And does not one of those need to demonstrate residence? Utility bills, leases, and voter registration IDs are the most commonly offered forms of proof of residency. So unless the spouse of the military member has their name on the lease or the utility bill they still will not meet the residency requirement.

    Did I miss/mess up somewhere on this?

    stay safe.
    Cite.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    A federal district court in Texas struck down the limitations on out of state purchases of handguns. The ruling was based on a couple living in DC who wanted to buy handguns from a Texas dealer. There was/is only one FFL in DC and the transfer fee he charges, along with the lack of any gun store or dealer in DC that actually sells guns, lead to a decision that that restriction was overbroad and inconsistent with the purpose of the GCA in modern times. It applies ONLY to purchased from an FFL, which requires the FFL to verify that the sale is legal in the state where the transaction occurs and the state of residency of the buyer. For instance, a California resident may not purchase a handgun in Texas if that gun is not also legal in California, and the dealer is responsible for verifying this kind of restriction.

    Appeal will be to the federal district court in NOLA, if it is appealed.

    Mance v. Holder, US District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •