Purchasing a shotgun out of state

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

Too bad the colleges don't accept that so one can get in-state tuition.......:(
 
alfredr said:
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).
Click to expand...
Seriously, I'm dumbfounded here. Even after I explained it four times already, you're still intentionally distorting what "intending to make a home" means. In your example above, he has already gone beyond intending to make a home, and he now actually makes a home in that state. How is it that you don't understand that?

You either haven't read anything we've written so far, or you're simply ignoring it and you're using your own made-up definition of "intending to make a home" that isn't recognized by the ATF or by federal law. Go back and read post #96, and while you're at it, please answer the question I asked you in that post.

alfredr said:
We probably need to end this discussion with no one winning the argument.
Click to expand...
No, you're simply flat-out wrong. You've invented your own personal definition of residency that doesn't match what both federal law and the ATF says. If someone followed your advice, they could easily end up committing a felony.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and you've provided zero evidence to back up any of your claims. Tom and I have many years of combined experience on this subject and have provided many links to back up what we're saying. This isn't about "agreeing to disagree", you're simply wrong.
 
Dreaming100Straight said:
This is too much. I am tired of replying to a certain idiot.
Click to expand...
I simply don't get it. Your posts almost appear schizophrenic. You keep saying that what he's posting is wrong, yet you're saying mostly the same thing. You even agreed with what I was posting and then said it was wrong, all in the same post.

Tom hasn't posted a single thing that's incorrect and you haven't provided a single bit of evidence to show that anything he has posted is incorrect. So why are you calling him an idiot?
 
I'm starting to hear a joke forming about a Texan made and owned camper becoming the Texas Consulate in Iowa.

Or we could go Schrodinger's cat. If a man is placed in a camper with radioactive poison in Texas and driven to Iowa he's both a resident and nonresident.
 
If it wasn't so sad this would be funny.

In response to post #98 I will address the peron's comments in the order they appear.

1. That was a backhanded compliment, when I noted that you know your stuff "compared to too many FFL's." Too many are close to brain dead.

2. Readers will judge whether you are a "Hemmingway", but I think not.

3. Who cares about California law? Doh, that is a tough one. Persons that are CA residents care, and there are more that a few of them on TFL. Dealers in other states need to care if they ever sell to a CA resident.

5. Sorry, but you still miss earning enough points to get an A.

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."
Click to expand...

Joe is NOT a FFL. You said, "If the leased out home is no longer his current residence address . . . ." Is it? If an FFL does not know, how is Joe to be expected to know and why would you say he is being untruthful if he thought that was his current residence address. After all, it is the current address of a residence of his that Joe just happens to be leasing out.

6. Attorneys aren't the only people that can recommend charges,which is not to say that I do or not.
 
Last edited:
Dreaming100Straight If it wasn't so sad this would be funny.
Click to expand...
True, but those who hold an FFL see you as a sad, sad troll.



In response to post #98 I will address the peron's comments in the order they appear.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to think Theohazard is on to something with his last post. Now I'm just a "person"? You don't even exhibit the common courtesy to use my name? Classy.:rolleyes:




1. That was a backhanded compliment, when I noted that you know your stuff "compared to too many FFL's." Too many are close to brain dead.
Click to expand...
I'll bet 99% of FFL's know ATF regs better than you. So far in this thread, 100% of FFL's do.;)





2. Readers will judge whether you are a "Hemmingway", but I think not.
Click to expand...
It's Hemingway, not "Hemmingway" and since I can at least spell his name correctly I'm one up on you.;)




3. Who cares about California law? Doh, that is a tough one. Persons that are CA residents care, and there are more that a few of them on TFL. Dealers in other states need to care if they ever sell to a CA resident.
Click to expand...
In a thread about ATF regulations and rulings try and stick to the topic. Seriously, if the thread was about buying a shotgun in California, or a California resident buying a firearm out of state, then California firearms law would be interesting. But since California law has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's question bringing it into the discussion derails the thread.





5. Sorry, but you still miss earning enough points to get an A.
Click to expand...
Nah. I nailed every little nuance of your hypothetical and you know it.





Quote:
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."
Click to expand...

Joe is NOT a FFL. You said, "If the leased out home is no longer his current residence address . . . ." Is it and if you do not know, how is the Joe, a layman, to know and why would you say he is being untruthful if he didn't know that it wasn't his address, if it wasn't?
Click to expand...
The burden to answer each question on the Form 4473 truthfully has always fallen on the buyer/transferee. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Ever heard the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?
If Joe can't figure out that his current residence address in State X isn't really his current address........that's his own problem. Claiming ignorance because he's a "layman" is naive.

You dreamed up the hypothetical, I answered it as given. Now you bring up the nonsense that Joe didn't know he was being untruthful. It doesn't change a thing. As Bruce Abramski discovered, lying on a 4473 is a crime.
 
Moderators please close this thread

I am the original poster and I humbly apologize for starting this thread. I will not be starting another one.

This has gone on too long with he said/he said. It seems that everyone wants to have the last word so as to achieve some sort of one upmanship.

I never envisioned that it would get off the rails like this.

Moderators please close this thread.

Thanks,
Joe
 
If the thread gets closed, I won't have to make myself a liar again.

If the thread doesn't get closed, we can all stop commenting on it. That is my intention.

Good night all.

Alfredr
 
Theo, I counted eight question marks in that post. Which is the one you still want an answer to?

Not that I will answer, because I'm trying to stick to my promise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top