Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
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."
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
let military spouses buy guns
- Thread starter oldbanger
- Start date
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."
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
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
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
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.
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.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Cite.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
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
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
The Gun Control Act of (what was it?) 1968
Happy now? Or did you demand a cite just to be obstreperous.
#
utbagpiper
Banned
While it doesn't take much to claim intention of making a home in a State, many do not. For example, while attending college outside my home State, I maintained my legal residency in Utah. Primarily this was done so I could vote in Utah. I simply didn't feel I had any long-term ties to Massachusetts and had far less interest in voting there than voting in Utah.
(Off topic, but I don't think college students should be voting in their college towns, nor military members in temporary duty assignments. Certainly not on 30 year bond issues or other similar financial obligations they know they won't be around to have to help fulfill. Vote absentee in the place you consider home so it will still be home when you return.)
Some States offer significant discounts on property taxes for one's primary residence. Giving that up to claim residency in another States could make a firearm purchase rather costly. (Some provide discounts for active military members as well, but that doesn't negate the point that a person may have various reasons for not wanting to establish residency in a new State.)
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
They sure are. Most of us animals can freely decide where we are going to live.
Members of the military get orders (not suggestions or requests, but orders). Their spouses and families can either follow them, or choose to live away from spouse and parent for the duration of the assignment.
I would prefer we simply repeal the entire, unconstitutional GCA '68. Eliminating provisions one at a time for all of us would be a fine fall-back position. But even in the absence of that, recognizing the unique position of military families is entirely different than treating two otherwise equal things differently. Military spouses are not merely tourists traveling through another State for a few days or weeks.
Charles
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Skid I have never had to show more than one ID to purchase a firearm. Different states may have different rules/laws but as far as federal law goes I do not think so. I have shown my CPL to avoid the waiting period in WA but not as a second ID. I will use myself as an example I have a house in Washington and a house in Arizona I have an Arizona ID card and a Washington DL, My wife and I pay taxes, utilities, vehicle registration in both La Paz county AZ and Stevens County WA. I am a resident of AZ part of the year and at that time I may purchase firearms in AZ when I am at my home in Wa I may purchase firearms in WA.
Reread my cite it is directly from the ATF even thought the wording would lead one to think it is a third party talking about the ATF.
Keep in mind that I am only talking about Federal law.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
utbagpiper
Banned
Interesting. So while I was a legal, voting resident of Utah, I was for purposes of buying gun, also a resident of Massachusetts?
Not that it materially helps given Massachusetts' State laws on buy guns and having one on campus. Beautiful place to visit (if one will visit locations that grossly infringe RKBA). Never want to live there again.
Charles
If I'm understanding correctly, your state is one of those that the ATF has opined that the CPL may serve as the background check. That is a special status that many other states do not enjoy. IIRC it comes from the state CPL background check going through the FBI. In Virginia, as but one example, the State Police (paraphrasing) run the background check via a state database and only go to the FBI to confirm hits. We are stuck showing government-issued ID and secondary proof of residence.
stay safe.
stay safe.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
You stated two forms are ID are necessary. Albeit in an apparent rhetorical question way.
Cite please.
That generalization of a whole act is not a cite. Specific cite to back up your statement would be appreciated. I don't have two forms of ID's and I have bought weapons. So give it up.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Purposefully missing the point of my post.
Making people special because they or their family choose to live off of tax payers is gross.
Brian D.
Regular Member
Hmm the thread title taught me something. Always thought the plural form of 'spouse' was 'spice' not 'spouses'.
skid, and please forgive my interjection SVG in your query, i do believe if you check this ATF site out:
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
and investigate FFL instructions for question # 20a and/or 20b you will discern the cite you are seeking...
ipse
https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
and investigate FFL instructions for question # 20a and/or 20b you will discern the cite you are seeking...
ipse
Last edited:
didn't serve a bloody moment in the armed forces did ya piper?
first bolded is incorrect statement...in some instances, there is no choosing, e.g., remotes, hostle, service academy, tech school, field exercise, etc.
second bolding, which will prob upset some former/active members, partners, male and female, but accompanying partners are truly nothing but tourists 'accompanying' their military members while they do assigned work!! partners they have always been allowed to 'accompany' their service member, but at service member personal expense!!!
during the 70's it became a kinder gentler armed services, recruitment and pay sucked, so military policy makers changed the 'rules' so junior enlisted and officer members were afforded the benefit of 'creature' comforts when stationed away.
these policy changed served several purposes, 1) cut medical budgets from treating STDs while the member was away from their consort (tongue in cheek); 2) member's were 'happier' (at least the complaining to congressional leaders from their partner they have not heard from the member while they were away went down) as the 'family' was together and service member's life is good ~ just ask em!! 3) of course communities were happier cuz junior housing had to be built in the community since the junior members were initially not allowed to live off base. and other $$$$ flowed to support the kinder services activities.
then single junior members complained so they were granted permission to live off base subsidized and once again the military member's life is balanced.
ipse
Last edited:
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Perfect, 20a is the line to record a government issued photo ID, 20b is the line for an alternate form of ID if the government issued photo ID used on line 20a does not have the current address. Only one ID is required if the address is correct on the the photo ID used on line 20a.
So I will stand by my statement that a military spouse can purchase a firearm and no new federal law is needed. Lets use my dear wife who does not have an AZ ID card but does have a WA DL. To buy a fire arm in AZ all she needs to do is fill out line 20a using her WA DL and then use a utility bill, car registration, property tax bill or wjat ever else is in the instructions for line 20b. Line 20a proves who you are and in some cases proves residency, 20b proves residency if the photo ID used on 20a shows an address in a different state.
I am betting most FFLs will turn you down if you present a photo ID with an address in a different state, they would be incorrect as far as federal law goes. I have seen FFLs do some pretty bizare stuff due to ignorance or in one case paranoia.
Now different states may have different rules that effect the ability to purchase a firearm but that is a separate topic IMO.
OC4me
Regular Member
. . . but I would even more support repeal of the '68 GCA.
1968 Gun Control Act - that super special, almost magical, piece of legislation that required felons to purchase their firearms from the black market.
1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - that super expensive (i.e. billions of dollars per year) common-sense 'enhancement' to the '68 GCA' in which Congress reaffirmed that they really meant it when they said that felons are required to purchase their firearms from the black market.
Last edited:
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
Love it, stealing it too BTW.