Storing guns out of state - not my residence

Status
Not open for further replies.
if the 4473 was under
The 4473 is a paper form that's filed in a gun store, no more, no less.
And, you are still referring to "ownership." Which is not the issue--unless a State permit has the s/n on it (different can of worms). State Permits are the only thing a firearm can be "on."

If the arm is in the house of A, it really does not matter if B is the actual owner. The only thing that matters is how it was transferred to A's house.
Suppose Z & Y are playing poker. Z pays his poker debt to Y by giving Y a firearm. A transfer has occurred as a result. If Z & Y are not residents of the same State, that transfer is Federally illegal (unless both parties were, in fact, FFL).
Let's say that the firearm stays at Z's residence. Let's then say that Z loans the arm to X on a temporary basis. Technically, Y is still the owner, but Z is the one who transferred, temporarily, the arm to Y. As long as Y is not a Prohibited Person, that loan to Y is legit. Even if it occurred without the owner's consent (that is an issue that would have to be resolved by Z & Y).
 
This is similar to the situation I questioned a few weeks ago ....

I just looked at that thread --

  1. It involved a complicated situation.

  2. We don't necessarily have all the facts that matter.

  3. There appears to be a lot of uncertain information which would need to sorted out or clarified.

  4. There was a lot of bad information being posted by folks responding to your question.

  5. Overall. it was very muddled.

But let's not get side tracked here.
 
Unless I've misunderstood the info in the posts on this subject I would think a small, relatively inexpensive gun safe at your parents home would suffice for legal storage as long as they don't have access to the contents.
 
You say you belong to a club in PA, are you able to leave it locked up at the club?

Perhaps since it's a corporation it would not be the same thing as a transfer to an individual.
 
The laws are specific as already stated. If firearms are stored elsewhere they must be secured and only the owner may have access to them.

I went through this when I was in the Army. It was a lot easier to leave my firearms at my parents house versus bringing them with me on overseas tours. I had to keep them in a locked safe/container and took the keys with me. Neither of my parents had access to my firearms.
 
You say you belong to a club in PA, are you able to leave it locked up at the club?

Perhaps since it's a corporation it would not be the same thing as a transfer to an individual.

First, a club is not necessarily a corporation. Many are, but some are not.

Second, a corporation is in many ways in the law treated as a [artificial] person.
 
The reason I wanted to keep it in PA is because the gun club has a very nice outdoor range at 100 yards and a gong at 200 yards. I really don’t have a great place to shoot those distances where I live in Virginia.

I will take a look around for a cheap stack-on to store at my parents house in PA. Whether I keep some guns there permanently or not, it’s good to have something in place to store them.
 
Another aspect of this, which we haven't mentioned, is that, according to the ATF, you can be a resident of more than one state. This usually arises when people have second homes, at which they spend part of the year. They are treated as residents of the second state during the time when they are actually present there, and they can purchase guns locally (from FFLs or from private individuals). Could the OP argue that his parents' home is his second residence, and that therefore he could transfer a gun to or from his father when he was actually there?
 
Could the OP argue that his parents' home is his second residence, and that therefore he could transfer a gun to or from his father when he was actually there?
Only trouble with that, at first glance is that it would be hard to provide "residency" documentation, like utility bills.
I'll guess, too, that the inherent 'dependency' of child to parent would be used against this construction.

Further, the Son cannot "loan" the firearm to the father without running afoul of interstate transfer, too. Frank details this above, and far better than I can.
 
Harder part would probably convincing the FFL that ownership and transfer are separate. FFL can be stubborn (check out Fuddbusters on YT, Matt is both a lawyer and an FFL on the topic of bullheaded FFL).
At no point would anyone need to convince an FFL of anything.
1. State X bans possession of firearm/magazine/shoulder things that go up.
2. Owners of such items ship their firearms to an FFL in a state without such a law.
3. Transferee (anyone, whether the firearm was bought, traded, sold, gifted, etc does not matter) completes a Form 4473/NICS and takes possession.
4. The original owner is free to visit and use/hunt with/otherwise possess that firearm......temporarily and only while in that state.
 
Another aspect of this, which we haven't mentioned, is that, according to the ATF, you can be a resident of more than one state. This usually arises when people have second homes, at which they spend part of the year. They are treated as residents of the second state during the time when they are actually present there, and they can purchase guns locally (from FFLs or from private individuals). Could the OP argue that his parents' home is his second residence, and that therefore he could transfer a gun to or from his father when he was actually there?

The only case where the BATF regards a person of being a resident of more than one state is when the subject is an active duty military member, living in one state, and commuting daily to duty in another state (please refer to BATF FFL Newsletter of August 2004).

Methinks that you may be slightly misunderstanding the BATF definition of "State of Residence" as contained in 27 CFR 478.11. That regulation provides:

State of residence. The State in which an individual resides. An individual resides in a State if he or she is present in a State with the intention of making a home in that State. If an individual is on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces, the individual's State of residence is the State in which his or her permanent duty station is located, as stated in 18 U.S.C. 921(b). The following are examples that illustrate this definition:
Example 1. A maintains a home in State X. A travels to State Y on a hunting, fishing, business, or other type of trip. A does not become a resident of State Y by reason of such trip.
Example 2. A maintains a home in State X and a home in State Y. A resides in State X except for weekends or the summer months of the year and in State Y for the weekends or the summer months of the year. During the time that A actually resides in State X, A is a resident of State X, and during the time that A actually resides in State Y, A is a resident of State Y.
Example 3. A, an alien, travels to the United States on a three-week vacation to State X. A does not have a state of residence in State X because A does not have the intention of making a home in State X while on vacation. This is true regardless of the length of the vacation.
Example 4. A, an alien, travels to the United States to work for three years in State X. A rents a home in State X, moves his personal possessions into the home, and his family resides with him in the home. A intends to reside in State X during the 3-year period of his employment. A is a resident of State X.

Please note that the regulation makes no provision for how long a person must be in a state in order to be a resident of that state. The key requirement is that one be present in the state with the intention of making a home in that state (as opposed to merely owning real property in the state). There is no limitation on how many different "homes" one may possess.

The net effect here is that one may change their federal "state of residency" as quickly as they can move between two states in which they maintain homes.

But a person cannot be a resident of more than one state at a time due to the requirement to be "present within a state" in order to be a resident (unless you're straddling a state border between two states in which you maintain homes).
 
The only case where the BATF regards a person of being a resident of more than one state is when the subject is an active duty military member, living in one state, and commuting daily to duty in another state (please refer to BATF FFL Newsletter of August 2004).

Methinks that you may be slightly misunderstanding the BATF definition of "State of Residence" as contained in 27 CFR 478.11. That regulation provides:
......edited................
But a person cannot be a resident of more than one state at a time due to the requirement to be "present within a state" in order to be a resident (unless you're straddling a state border between two states in which you maintain homes).
Methinks you need to reread ATF Ruling 2010-6 State of Residence as well as ATF's instructions on the Form 4473, where they clearly state: "If the transferee/buyer has two States of residence, the transferee/buyer should list his/her current residence address (e.g., if the transferee/buyer is purchasing a firearm while staying at his/her weekend home in State X, list the address in State X)."

So.........yeah, a person CAN have multiple states of residence for the purposes of acquiring firearms.
 
Agreed, but, you are a sensible person and FFL. Not all FFL reach that zenith. I've met a few that calling them "bull headed" is an insult to bulls everywhere.
The point I'm making is that at no point will the FFL have any need to know or be concerned as to who has an ownership interest in a firearm....only who the lawful transferee is.
 
Methinks you need to reread ATF Ruling 2010-6 State of Residence as well as ATF's instructions on the Form 4473, where they clearly state: "If the transferee/buyer has two States of residence, the transferee/buyer should list his/her current residence address (e.g., if the transferee/buyer is purchasing a firearm while staying at his/her weekend home in State X, list the address in State X)."

So.........yeah, a person CAN have multiple states of residence for the purposes of acquiring firearms.

Tom,

Let's start of by clearly framing the issue. I am asserting that a person can only have one state of residence at a time (except for that military member previously discussed), even though they maintain residences in more than one state. I also maintain that a person can change their state of residency (for purposes of firearms laws) as quickly as they can move between states in which they maintain residences. You are asserting that a person can have "multiple states of residence."

You're making at least three different mistakes here:

1) "Residence" and "Residency" are not the same. They are different words and have different meanings.

2) The language on the Form 4473 is not law. The words that appear on the form are carefully chosen to reflect the content of both statutes and regulations, and to present it in a very brief and concise form. The nine words that you have quoted from the form condense several paragraphs of law. When the author condenses that much, it's expected some detail of content is gonna be lost. But the author of the form did a good job here. For the purposes of a person with multiple residences in different states, the language on the form will correctly lead the person to complete the form. But it's not an entirely accurate summary of the law.

3) I have re-read ATF Ruling 2010-6 in preparation to write this reply. It does not support your position, and does clearly support mine. Let's look at what the document states. It consists of three pages, the first two explain the background of the issue. Nowhere in those two pages is there any description of a person being a resident of two states at the same time. The author of the ruling carefully uses the language "Multiple Residences" as opposed to "Multiple States of Residence." The second page contains two specific holdings. Only the first is applicable to our discussion. Here is what it says, word for word, with nothing left out:

"Held, for the purpose of acquiring firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968, a United States citizen who temporarily resides in a foreign country, but who also demonstrates the intention of making a home in a particular State, is a resident of the State during the time period he or she actually resides in that State."
Now let's apply this holding to a gent who has his workweek home in Oklahoma, and his weekend home in Texas. He most certainly has residences in multiple states. But he does not have multiple states of residence. The reason that he does not is the requirement in 27 CFR 478.11, and again incorporated into the holding quoted above from ATF Ruling 2010-6 that a person "is a resident of the state during the time that he or she actually resides in that state." That's a very important condition and you seem to ignore it. Applied to the gent in this example, he would be a resident of Oklahoma during the week when he is in Oklahoma (and would not be a resident of Texas) and then he would be a resident of Texas on the weekend when he is in Texas (and would not be a resident of Oklahoma). He only has one "state of residence" at a time. You seem to mistakenly believe that he is a resident of both at the same time and that cannot be the case because of the requirement to be in the state in order to be a resident.

Now, to return to the instructions on Form 4473, if this gent tried to purchase a firearm in either Oklahoma, or Texas, the instructions on the form would lead him to correctly fill it out. That's all the instructions are intended to do.

For an FFL Dealer in Texas, there may be little meaning to the distinction. I'm a retired LEO from California and the issue of residency in relation to firearms has a lot of significance to some California statutes and the distinction can create felony criminal liability for a California resident who acquires a handgun while out of state and then brings that handgun into California.

For anyone interested, here is a copy of the ATF Ruling 2010-6: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/ruling/2010-6-state-residence/download
 
Tom,

Let's start of by clearly framing the issue. I am asserting that a person can only have one state of residence at a time (except for that military member previously discussed), even though they maintain residences in more than one state. I also maintain that a person can change their state of residency (for purposes of firearms laws) as quickly as they can move between states in which they maintain residences. You are asserting that a person can have "multiple states of residence."
No, ATF asserts that a person can have more than one state of residence for the purposes of acquiring firearms.

Whether its "at a time" is clearly spelled out by ATF and common sense. A person, including a member of the Armed Forces on active duty, cannot be in two states at once. ATF uses the term "multiple states of residence".


You're making at least three different mistakes here:
Doubtful.


1) "Residence" and "Residency" are not the same. They are different words and have different meanings.
Tell that to ATF. It will be enlightening to them.


2) The language on the Form 4473 is not law. The words that appear on the form are carefully chosen to reflect the content of both statutes and regulations, and to present it in a very brief and concise form. The nine words that you have quoted from the form condense several paragraphs of law. When the author condenses that much, it's expected some detail of content is gonna be lost. But the author of the form did a good job here. For the purposes of a person with multiple residences in different states, the language on the form will correctly lead the person to complete the form. But it's not an entirely accurate summary of the law.
Again, your argument is with ATF.
And I agree with ATF as its an accurate summary of the regulations.


3) I have re-read ATF Ruling 2010-6 in preparation to write this reply. It does not support your position, and does clearly support mine. Let's look at what the document states. It consists of three pages, the first two explain the background of the issue. Nowhere in those two pages is there any description of a person being a resident of two states at the same time. The author of the ruling carefully uses the language "Multiple Residences" as opposed to "Multiple States of Residence." The second page contains two specific holdings. Only the first is applicable to our discussion. Here is what it says, word for word, with nothing left out:

"Held, for the purpose of acquiring firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968, a United States citizen who temporarily resides in a foreign country, but who also demonstrates the intention of making a home in a particular State, is a resident of the State during the time period he or she actually resides in that State."
See the bolded and underlined text? Thats called a clue.;)

Now let's apply this holding to a gent who has his workweek home in Oklahoma, and his weekend home in Texas. He most certainly has residences in multiple states. But he does not have multiple states of residence. The reason that he does not is the requirement in 27 CFR 478.11, and again incorporated into the holding quoted above from ATF Ruling 2010-6 that a person "is a resident of the state during the time that he or she actually resides in that state." That's a very important condition and you seem to ignore it. Applied to the gent in this example, he would be a resident of Oklahoma during the week when he is in Oklahoma (and would not be a resident of Texas) and then he would be a resident of Texas on the weekend when he is in Texas (and would not be a resident of Oklahoma). He only has one "state of residence" at a time. You seem to mistakenly believe that he is a resident of both at the same time and that cannot be the case because of the requirement to be in the state in order to be a resident.
Again, you are ignoring the purpose of "State of Residence" for the purposes of acquiring firearms. If you dislike my post above......take it up with ATF. They wrote it.
Again, the buyer you describe has two states of residence FOR THE PURPOSES OF ACQUIRING FIREARMS. He can only acquire those firearms WHILE RESIDING IN THOSE STATES.

Now, to return to the instructions on Form 4473, if this gent tried to purchase a firearm in either Oklahoma, or Texas, the instructions on the form would lead him to correctly fill it out. That's all the instructions are intended to do.
The instructions that you say above are not "entirely accurate".:rofl:


For an FFL Dealer in Texas, there may be little meaning to the distinction. I'm a retired LEO from California and the issue of residency in relation to firearms has a lot of significance to some California statutes and the distinction can create felony criminal liability for a California resident who acquires a handgun while out of state and then brings that handgun into California.
Who cares about California law. The discussion is about FEDERAL LAW. Nothing in FEDERAL LAW prohibits having multiple states of residence for the purposes of acquiring firearms.
 
The bottom line is --

For one to be a resident of a State for the purposes of GCA68 one must be present in that State with the intention of making a home in that State. So it comes down to whether the facts support the inference that one has the intention of making his home in the State in which he is present.

So if I take my family from our home in California to Orlando, book a motel there for ten days, and spend a week or so visiting tourist attractions, one could not reasonably infer that I intend to make a home in Florida.

On the other hand, if I have houses in State X, State Y, and State Z, I keep clothing and other personal property at each house, and I generally divide my time among those houses, one could reasonably infer that when I am present in State Y I am intending to make State Y my home, at least for as long as I'm there. And thus State Y would be my GCA68 State of residence while I'm present in that State. But neither State X nor State Z would be my GCA68 States of residence while I'm in State Y (even if one or both of those States might consider me a resident for state law purposes, such as liability for state income taxes as a resident).

The real issues will be what are the facts and whether one could reasonably infer from those facts that I intend to make a particular State my home, even if only temporarily. I haven't done the research to see if there's any case law that might clarify those issues, nor do I plan to.

ATF Ruling 2010-6 sets out ATF's position with regard to persons who maintain residences both in a foreign country and a State. And this ATF document addresses the college student situation.
 
Yes, when I last matriculated, I bought a gun or two under that provision.
Ammo, too. Remember when you had to sign for ammunition? That regulation later dropped.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top