Purchasing a shotgun out of state

[Dreaming100Straight]

Dogtown,

Who in the hell ever said they were required to show for gun purchase. These are things that a prosecutor can use to demonstrate that a person had not made a home in the state of purchase and was therefor not a resident. Of course the dealer doesn't require all of that stuff on voting, church attendance, and such.

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

Clueless is the nicest thing I could say about you at this point.

Funny, but for someone that called me "... clueless as to the law of residency for purposes of firearms acquisition." you seem to parrot my posts.

I was writing mine and couldn't even see your awesome post until after I posted.

Go ahead an ramble on. I am done with you.

 

[Theohazard]

The original poster can buy his shotgun in Iowa, yes. Whether he buys it as a resident of Texas or of Iowa appears to depend on the interpretation of his FFL.

No, the FFL doesn't get to decide whether he's a resident of Texas or not, that's decided by federal law. If he's not currently residing in Texas, he can't use Texas as his residence on the 4473. If the FFL allows him to use his Texas address even if he's not currently living in Texas, then they are making a mistake.

As far as I know, my son in Wyoming for the summer has no intention of "making a home" in Wyo. nor of buying any firearms while he is there. As far as I know he didn't take any with him either. He intends to have a hassle-free summer

Holy cow, how is it that you're not understanding this? For the third time, "intent" has absolutely zero to do with where your son eventually plans to live in the future. It simply means that the moment your son set foot in Wyoming with the intent to live there -- even temporarily -- he became a Wyoming resident. And the moment he sets foot in another state with the intent to live there, he'll stop being a resident of Wyoming and he'll then be a resident of the new state.

At this point, your son went beyond his original intent to live in Wyoming; now he actually lives there. That's it. How do you not understand this?

 

[dogtown tom]

Dreaming100Straight Dogtown,
Who in the hell ever said they were required to show for gun purchase. These are things that a prosecutor can use to demonstrate that a person had not made a home in the state of purchase and was therefor not a resident.

Well, YOU brought such nonsense into the thread.
If the buyer provides the government issued alternate documentation that is all the proof needed.

Of course the dealer doesn't require all of that stuff on voting, church attendance, and such.

"Of course"? Either it's needed or it's not.
Thanks for obfuscating the thread pal.
You've added exactly zero value.

 

[Blindstitch]

I'm glad someone asked this question.

I do like the pistol loophole. Residency vs legally recognized documents.

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

If the buyer provides the government issued alternate documentation that is all the proof needed.

Proof enough for whom other that a FFL doing $20 transfers? Don't get me wrong, some FFLs know what they are doing, but way too many are clueless.

Thanks for obfuscating the thread pal.
You've added exactly zero value.

Fortunately, I have no need of pals like you. Unfortunately, licensees like yourself can easily cause serious legal problems for good people.

 

[dogtown tom]

Dreaming100Straight

Quote:
If the buyer provides the government issued alternate documentation that is all the proof needed.

Proof enough for whom other that a FFL doing $20 transfers? Don't get me wrong, some FFLs know what they are doing, but way too many are clueless.

Proof enough for FFL's doing $5 transfers, proof enough for ATF, proof enough for the USAO.

All a dealer has to do is read the instructions on the 4473. Maybe you should try that as well.

Quote:
Thanks for obfuscating the thread pal.
You've added exactly zero value.

Fortunately, I have no need of pals like you. Unfortunately, licensees like yourself can easily cause serious legal problems for good people.

Rubbish. You can't piece together an argument and instead decide to slander me.

Nothing I've written or linked to is contrary to any ATF regulation. But once again you disagree.

So.......put up or shut up. Either point out my advice that can cause "serious legal problems" or get the heck out of the thread.

You make claims then refuse to back them up. That's pretty cowardly.

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

Either point out my advice that can cause "serious legal problems" or get the heck out of the thread.

You suggest that as long as you present the government issued documentation that is all the proof needed, when the fact is that you just committed a felony if at the time you no longer are a resident of the state. You may not have intended to give anyone that impression, but in the context of posts about presence in a state along with the intent to make a home equals residency some are encouraged to make illegal purchases thinking that if the purchase is ever investigated no one can prove that at the time they didn't plan to make a home in that state. This is more likely to become an issue if trips to the other state coincide with the purchase of guns that are regularly sold in another state.

These are often referred to as multi state residents, even though as I see you understand you are actually only considered a resident of one at any given time; the one in which you are physically present.

Sometimes a simple hypothetical is useful in understanding how law is applied. Say Joe owns a house in State X and another in California. State X has no waiting period and so called instant background checks. Since he and Mrs. Joe have two grown children of which one lives in State X and the other in Los Angeles, they have been splitting time equally between living in their two homes, but the son in X gets transferred to the Santa Ana, CA office. Consequently, Mr. and Mrs. Joe lease out their State of X home and head for Beverly Hills. (Sounds like the Clampets.)

Now on the way to the airport, Joe stops off to pick his Sig 229 up at the lgs, where it had been left for some trigger work. While there, Joe falls in love with a used Beretta over/under and buys it. He presents his State of X drivers license and is back on the road with his old Sig and new used over under.

Bot guns are correctly declared at the airport and checked through by TSA. A couple of weeks after moving, Joe is arrested. What if any crimes have been committed?

 

[sfwusc]

I don't understand the issue.

You must put the address where you currently reside. That is what the form says right?

You must provide documentation of that address. I used my car reg. Before I got a new driver's one time.

If you have a home in X and are living in it. Then you currently reside there.
I see an RV or dorm room as a home. I would guess most juries would as well.

The simple truth is it would be up to a jury to decide what a home is or isn't.

This is why 3rd party sales that avoid a FFl or nice where legal.

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

Forget it. This is going nowhere real fast. I think it got off track as a result of not so much what Dogtown said but how it was said in the context of what others posted about intent.

 

[dogtown tom]

Dreaming100Straight

Quote:
Either point out my advice that can cause "serious legal problems" or get the heck out of the thread.

You suggest that as long as you present the government issued documentation that is all the proof needed, when the fact is that you just committed a felony if at the time you no longer are a resident of the state.

You didn't read what I wrote.
SEVERAL times in this thread I have mentioned that the transferee/buyer must ACTUALLY reside at his current residence address. As such your assertion above is laughably wrong fella. Never once have I suggested that a buyer/transferee falsify the Form 4473....and shame on you for suggesting that I have.

You may not have intended to give anyone that impression, but in the context of posts about presence in a state along with the intent to make a home equals residency some are encouraged to make illegal purchases thinking that if the purchase is ever investigated no one can prove that at the time they didn't plan to make a home in that state.

Please rephrase this horribly constructed sentence.
I have written ad nauseaum about a buyer/transferee answering Que 2 on the 4473 with their actual current address. As has Theohazard. You have quite the imagination to come to a conclusion that I have encouraged anyone to make illegal purchases. In fact, I have provided links to ATF documents backing up my statements, whereas you don't.

This is more likely to become an issue if trips to the other state coincide with the purchase of guns that are regularly sold in another state.

Huh?
Is English your first language? I ask because your comprehension of what has been written by ATF, Theohazard and myself is to put it mildly.....bad.
A buyer/transferee can travel to as many states as he wants and buy firearms in any of them provided he follows Federal law and the sale/transfer is legal in his state of residence.

These are often referred to as multi state residents, even though as I see you understand you are actually only considered a resident of one at any given time; the one in which you are physically present.

I know full well what a multi state resident is. And have for some time. Funny how actually reading ATF Rulings will do that.

Sometimes a simple hypothetical is useful in understanding how law is applied. Say Joe owns a house in State X and another in California. State X has no waiting period and so called instant background checks. Since he and Mrs. Joe have two grown children of which one lives in State X and the other in Los Angeles, they have been splitting time equally between living in their two homes, but the son in X gets transferred to the Santa Ana, CA office. Consequently, Mr. and Mrs. Joe lease out their State of X home and head for Beverly Hills. (Sounds like the Clampets.)

Now on the way to the airport, Joe stops off to pick his Sig 229 up at the lgs, where it had been left for some trigger work. While there, Joe falls in love with a used Beretta over/under and buys it. He presents his State of X drivers license and is back on the road with his old Sig and new used over under.

The return of a repaired or replacement firearm does not require a Form 4473. It wouldn't matter what Joe's state of residence is.

If the leased out home is no longer his current residence address, then Joe did not truthfully answer Que 2 on the 4473 for the shotgun.

Bot guns are correctly declared at the airport and checked through by TSA. A couple of weeks after moving, Joe is arrested. What if any crimes have been committed?

Arrested by who?
If by the State of California I don't really care. If by ATF, it means they think he lied on his 4473. The crime would be falsifying a Federal document.

 

[alfredr]

I understand the position being taken by Theohazard and dogtownTom; I just don't agree with it. Making a home means putting down roots, not just living somewhere temporarily, even as long as 5 or6 months.

Is anyone here an actual FFL, own or work in a gun store or otherwise deal with gin purchases on a regular basis? Work for BATFE as an investigator? Have you had BATFE explain to you what residence means to them?

Nothing I have read of the links provided says in so many words that you become a resident of a state just by entering and occupying space there, that you are a resident just because you eat and sleep there. It always includes the phrase "intention to make a home".

The identification documents to show residency need to be government issued, or a combination of government documents that provide the required information, which includes a photo.

Until someone can show that ATF aggressively investigates people's claims of residency and that they consistently interpret it one way, or Can show courts ruling consistently one way, I think we will continue to disagree about this.

I like to think we are all reasonable people here even though we disagree.

 

[sfwusc]

Dogtown is a FFL

 

[Theohazard]

Funny, but for someone that called me "... clueless as to the law of residency for purposes of firearms acquisition." you seem to parrot my posts.

Yeah, I really don't understand what Dreaming100Straight is taking issue with. I think he's just misunderstanding what we're writing for some reason. He "corrected" me in post 66 even though I was correct and I was saying the exact same thing he was saying, only I was wording it slightly differently. And so far, he hasn't been able to give any evidence that anything you and I have posted is incorrect.

Dreaming100Straight, I've worked as a manager at two different FFLs and helped out at a third, I've been through 3 ATF inspections, and I constantly strive to understand all the ATF rules regarding my job. Luckily, the ATF makes it fairly easy by providing plenty of information on this subject. And I can tell you that Tom really knows his stuff; he's definitely even more knowledgeable on this subject than I am.

 

[Dreaming100Straight]

Downtown, Have a good life. Compared to too many FFL's you know your stuff. As does any good teaching hypo, there is no black and white answer and what is most telling is the ability to spot the issues. You get a C+ for realizing the obvious one, which was whether or not it was a Federal arrest. I didn't expect you to know the potential Calfornia law violation but there is one that the anti gun CA legislature put into effect Jan 1, 201(5).

What should have jumped out was the potential of being arrested for violation of 18 USC 922(a)(3). As you have yourself said, ownership of property does not make you a resident. Joe was no longer a resident of X since he had decided to take up year around residency in California and had actually put the State of X home out to lease. Consequently, he no longer was a resident of X as his sole state of residence was California.

I wouldn't fault the dealer since he had every reason to believe that his regular customer, who presented a State of X DL, was a resident off X. It would be a tough one to prosecute and also not be very likely to even result is an arrest, but given those facts Joe is guilty with one caveat. A good defense attorney might get charges dropped or obtain a ng by establish a lack of mens rea. I certainly wouldn't recommend charges.

if anyone cares, the CA state charge that Joe would face is for bringing the shotgun into the state without it being first delivered to an an FFL. Were he just moving to CA as a new resident, it would NOT be necessary, but as per CA state law he was a resident of CA even when he was a resident of X. The penal code section in question was passed since CA felt that too many residents with multi state residences were getting around its safe handgun roster by purchasing them in those other states and bringing them into CA. Since the FFL cannot deliver handguns that are not on the roster to a non -exempt CA resident, that avenue of acquiring handguns in free states dried up.

 

[Theohazard]

I understand the position being taken by Theohazard and dogtownTom; I just don't agree with it. Making a home means putting down roots, not just living somewhere temporarily, even as long as 5 or6 months.

You can disagree with it all you want, but it's still the law. If your son went to buy a firearm in Wyoming and he put anything other than his current Wyoming address on the 4473, he would be committing a felony.

But I have a question for you: If the law was changed to use your definition of residency, how would it be defined or enforced? How do you define "putting down roots"? How do you prove that you're a resident of a state that you don't live in but eventually plan to settle down in one day? How do you enforce a definition of residency that bases it on "where your heart is"?

No, the current definition of residency is simple and easy: It's just based on where you're currently living.

Is anyone here an actual FFL, own or work in a gun store or otherwise deal with gin purchases on a regular basis? Work for BATFE as an investigator? Have you had BATFE explain to you what residence means to them?

Tom is an FFL holder himself and I manage at an FFL. Both of us have lots of experience dealing with the ATF on the subject (him more than me). I have personally talked to more than one ATF industry ops folks about this very subject on more than one occasion.

Nothing I have read of the links provided says in so many words that you become a resident of a state just by entering and occupying space there, that you are a resident just because you eat and sleep there. It always includes the phrase "intention to make a home".

And how many times do I have to point out to you that you're completely misunderstanding that phrase? Go back and read post #83. "Making a home" means establishing a place to live. "Intending to make a home" simply means that you moved to a state but you haven't established a place to live yet. How is it that you still don't get this even though I've explained it four times now?

Until someone can show that ATF aggressively investigates people's claims of residency and that they consistently interpret it one way, or Can show courts ruling consistently one way, I think we will continue to disagree about this.

I like to think we are all reasonable people here even though we disagree.

What exactly do you disagree with here? Are you saying that the law should be written and/or interpreted differently? Well, then work to change the law or take the ATF to court over their interpretation of it.

Or are you saying that what Tom and I are saying is incorrect? If that's the case, then you're flat-out wrong.

 

[Footslogger]

People over complicate this too much.

As long as you fill out the 4473 correctly and the firearm is transferable between the state of residence and the state of purchase then you are ok.

 

[dogtown tom]

Dreaming100Straight Downtown....Compared to too many FFL's you know your stuff.

I know that....but what's puzzling is that you've gone from calling me clueless to now saying I know my stuff. (in less than seven hours)

Sorry, I can't say the same for you.

As does any good teaching hypo, there is no black and white answer and what is most telling is the ability to spot the issues. You get a C+ for realizing the obvious one, which was whether or not it was a Federal arrest.

Thanks, that's like having a kindergartner grade Hemingway in writing.

I didn't expect you to know the potential Calfornia law violation but there is one that the anti gun CA legislature put into effect Jan 1, 201(5).

Again, who cares about California law in a discussion of FEDERAL freaking law?

What should have jumped out was the potential of being arrested for violation of 18 USC 922(a)(3). As you have yourself said, ownership of property does not make you a resident. Joe was no longer a resident of X since he had decided to take up year around residency in California and had actually put the State of X home out to lease. Consequently, he no longer was a resident of X as his sole state of residence was California.

Sorry, this is where YOU get an "F" in reading comprehension.
I wrote: "If the leased out home is no longer his current residence address, then Joe did not truthfully answer Que 2 on the 4473 for the shotgun."

That pretty much means I DIDN'T miss a darn thing.....but you did.

I guess my C+ just became an A+.

I wouldn't fault the dealer since he had every reason to believe that his regular customer, who presented a State of X DL, was a resident off X. It would be a tough one to prosecute and also not be very likely to even result is an arrest, but given those facts Joe is guilty with one caveat. A good defense attorney might get charges dropped or obtain a ng by establish a lack of mens rea.

As with all answers on a Form 4473, the buyer/transferee certifies that his answers are true, correct and complete. If Joe knows that he no longer is a resident of State X he commits a Federal crime for falsifying that Federal document. And as the instructions on the 4473 clearly explain what "State of Residence" is.......Joe has little defense.

I certainly wouldn't recommend charges.

Are you an attorney?

 

[alfredr]

We probably need to end this discussion with no one winning the argument. The original poster (XDforever) has his answer to his satisfaction.

If an out of state buyer can't buy his shotgun as an out of state buyer because he comments to the FFL that he has been living in the state for X number of days or weeks or months, but has no intention of staying in the state and plans to return to to his home state when his gig is up, then he will either not buy his shotgun there or he will have to go through whatever the state requires to get the ID and then come back and buy the shotgun.

Of course if he intended to make a home in that state, he would be doing that anyway and wouldn't be wanting to buy the shotgun as a nonresident of the state. This makes it so much easier on him (sarcasm).

Would a 5 month gig with a seasonal amusement park not come under the category of "short term stays, vacations, or other transient acts"? When the gig is done, he is going back home, and he has a home to go to.

This time, I promise, I will not say any more on this here.

 

[dogtown tom]

alfredr We probably need to end this discussion with no one winning the argument.

There is no argument, either you are in compliance with ATF regulations or you are not. Same with the buyer completing the 4473 and certifying that his answers are "true, correct and complete".

If an out of state buyer can't buy his shotgun as an out of state buyer because he comments to the FFL that he has been living in the state for X number of days or weeks or months, but has no intention of staying in the state and plans to return to to his home state when his gig is up, then he will either not buy his shotgun there or he will have to go through whatever the state requires to get the ID and then come back and buy the shotgun.

You haven't read anything we've posted have you?

Would a 5 month gig with a seasonal amusement park not come under the category of "short term stays, vacations, or other transient acts"?

Nope. It's really no different than a college student living out of his home state while attending school. He would be a resident of Oklahoma while attending OU, a resident of Texas when he comes "home" for summer.

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 off-campus location, they are considered residents of the State where the on-campus or off-campus housing is located.