Addresses and Identification

[Frank Ettin]

... You appeared to indicate that for a large portion of the year you live in your RV....

I disagree. It's not that simple.

...I don't have multiple residences. Maybe the ATF defines an RV as a residence I don't know. The example the ATF gave was for a weekend home. .....

I generally agree.

I think the problem is that there's no bright-line test.

Some people have a home, and that's their home even though they might be temporarily absent from that home from time-to-time -- and perhaps even for extended periods. Some folks might have several homes -- places they live in particular locales on some regular or periodic bases, e. g., a vacation home. Some folks may have no fixed home, traveling all the time but maintaining a sort of accommodation address at which they receive mail or through which they could be contacted. Where a particular person fits depends on all the facts.

So as CoalTrain49 seems to describe his situation, he fits in the first group. He has an address which he considers to be his home. He spends most of his time there. He leaves on occasion, but always returns. His occasional, temporary absences don't change anything.

An example of someone in the second group could be a college student. When away at school, that is his home, and his address there is his residence. If he returns to his familial home during breaks, that address is his residence when he's present there. Another example would be the guy with a cabin in the mountains where he lives for short periods of time during ski season.

Then there's the modern, nomadic retiree. He's in the third group. He sold his house, and bought an RV. He stores some things at a friend's place and uses his friend's address on his driver's license. His mail gets delivered to his friend, with whom he stays in touch, and his friend periodically forwards mail on as the nomad directs. He has no fixed home and has some problems if he wants to buy guns and remain kosher under the Gun Control Act.

In each case where one resides is a question of fact to be inferred from circumstances. The address on a driver's license isn't one's residence address because it's on one's driver's license. It's his residence address only if the circumstance properly support the inference that it is his residence address.

In both Garrity and Queen the defendants relied on addresses on their respective driver's licenses. But in each case the facts did not support the conclusion that those addresses were their residence addresses.

....And I know you are an attorney. So is my BIL. I wouldn't expect him to give me advise about filling out a 4473. He's a personal injury attorney that deals with insurance companies.

Nonetheless, he has the knowledge base, analytical skills and research skills to be able to give you advice if he chose to spend the necessary time studying the subject.

 

[CoalTrain49]

That sounds reasonable.

Never hurts to examine the relevant facts in each case.

 

[Theohazard]

You appeared to indicate that for a large portion of the year you live in your RV.

I disagree. It's not that simple.

Well, as a layman one thing I've learned is to show a level of uncertainty when discussing legal matters where I'm not sure of the answer. I tried to show a sufficient amount of uncertainty in that post, but I guess it wasn't enough. So here's my question: Where's the line between "temporary travel" like just travelling around in your RV and actually living in your RV?

It was hard to tell for sure, but it seemed to me that CoalTrain49 was describing a situation where he actually lived in his RV; he mentioned parking his RV on BLM land and trying (unsuccessfully) to have his mail forwarded there. Maybe my understanding of the situation was wrong, or maybe my understanding of the line between "temporary travel" and "making a home" is wrong, and I'm not sure which it is.

These rules for residency are super simple in most cases, but I'll admit it gets difficult in the cases where there's a blurred line between living somewhere and just visiting.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Well, as a layman one thing I've learned is to show a level of uncertainty when discussing legal matters where I'm not sure of the answer. I tried to show a sufficient amount of uncertainty in that post, but I guess it wasn't enough. So here's my question: Where's the line between "temporary travel" and "transient acts" (both ATF terms) like just travelling around in your RV or actually living in your RV?

It was hard to tell for sure, but it seemed to me that CoalTrain49 was describing a situation where he actually lived in his RV; he mentioned parking his RV on BLM land and trying (unsuccessfully) to have his mail forwarded there. Maybe my understanding of the situation was wrong, or maybe my understanding of the line between "temporary travel" and "making a home" is wrong, and I'm not sure which it is.

These rules for residency are super simple in most cases, but I'll admit it gets difficult in the cases where there's a blurred line between living somewhere and just visiting.

Here's what I know about the RV community. I've been around these folks for a few years now. They really are a cross section of society. Some people would consider that lifestyle unappealing but many enjoy being able to travel and get away from home when the weather keeps most people inside. Some of these folks have motor homes that cost as much as my house. Those folks are retired. Others are still working and move around from job to job. You also see pan handlers living in an old van but there are very few of those in the places I stay. From my experience I would say at least half of the folks in the SW in the winter fall into the first category.

I can see why there might be some prejudice from someone who hasn't experienced that lifestyle.

People who spend a great deal of time traveling are transients by definition but that does't necessarily mean they are homeless, vagrants or street people.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let's not make this about the lifestyle. The issue is that essentially federal law effectively requires that one have an identifiable, fixed place of residence to be able to buy a gun. The courts are only just beginning to try to deal with this aspect of federal gun law in a world in which (1) a nomadic life is becoming more popular and accepted in a more affluent segment of society; and (2) the RKBA has been confirmed to be an individual right.