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.