It is discriminatory. I know people that have no address.
People that live in a vehicle, or live on the road in an RV.
I have also lived at a location that had no reasonable way to get mail, and any mail was dropped in the dirt down an unkept unpaved road nobody would drive down, far from the actual residence. Blowing away in the wind or being stolen before ever found by the person it was meant to go to was a very real possibility.
The mailboxes that were attempted to be put up there were also stolen or bashed in by teenagers about once a month.
Government that required a physical address almost always chose to send official crap to that address and not the PO box even when both were put on the paperwork. Insuring it got lost much of the time.
A defacto law requiring people to have an address to exercise a constitional right seems unconstitutional, especially at the federal level.
It is worse than the requirement that someone buying in one state must adhere to the laws of their home state. Why can't I purchase a gun I keep in a safety deposit box or in storage in another state that is not legal in my state? It is certainly legal to do with guns I happen to already own.
Why can I not buy a gun not legal at purchase in my home state (federal law states even to purchase a long gun in another state it must meet the laws of both states), but that with proper modifications becomes legal in my home state if I choose to bring it back. It is assumed I won't make those modifications or properly adhere to my state law, and bring it back as a prohibited item.
Really it is all out of the presumption that the purchaser is going to break the law. Assuming criminal intent of the purchaser, and so preventing them from doing what could otherwise be entirely lawful.
They assume a California resident buying in Nevada is going to take it back to California, and so should not be able to buy anything that does not coincide with California law. But what does what I do in Nevada have to do with what is legal in California? If I want to go to Alaska, buy something there, go on a hunt, then sell it or leave it there, why must it adhere to the laws of the state I am a resident in to be purchased?
Assumption that I am going to break Caliornia law if I am allowed to purchase it.
You are assumed to have criminal intent of violating your state law, and getting around your state restrictions by buying someplace else.
Likewise that is why the address is so important, to establish what state you are a resident of, to prevent you from buying what you cannot buy in your state, or handguns.
Law abiding citizens that pass a background check are assumed criminals.
People that live in a vehicle, or live on the road in an RV.
I have also lived at a location that had no reasonable way to get mail, and any mail was dropped in the dirt down an unkept unpaved road nobody would drive down, far from the actual residence. Blowing away in the wind or being stolen before ever found by the person it was meant to go to was a very real possibility.
The mailboxes that were attempted to be put up there were also stolen or bashed in by teenagers about once a month.
Government that required a physical address almost always chose to send official crap to that address and not the PO box even when both were put on the paperwork. Insuring it got lost much of the time.
A defacto law requiring people to have an address to exercise a constitional right seems unconstitutional, especially at the federal level.
It is worse than the requirement that someone buying in one state must adhere to the laws of their home state. Why can't I purchase a gun I keep in a safety deposit box or in storage in another state that is not legal in my state? It is certainly legal to do with guns I happen to already own.
Why can I not buy a gun not legal at purchase in my home state (federal law states even to purchase a long gun in another state it must meet the laws of both states), but that with proper modifications becomes legal in my home state if I choose to bring it back. It is assumed I won't make those modifications or properly adhere to my state law, and bring it back as a prohibited item.
Really it is all out of the presumption that the purchaser is going to break the law. Assuming criminal intent of the purchaser, and so preventing them from doing what could otherwise be entirely lawful.
They assume a California resident buying in Nevada is going to take it back to California, and so should not be able to buy anything that does not coincide with California law. But what does what I do in Nevada have to do with what is legal in California? If I want to go to Alaska, buy something there, go on a hunt, then sell it or leave it there, why must it adhere to the laws of the state I am a resident in to be purchased?
Assumption that I am going to break Caliornia law if I am allowed to purchase it.
You are assumed to have criminal intent of violating your state law, and getting around your state restrictions by buying someplace else.
Likewise that is why the address is so important, to establish what state you are a resident of, to prevent you from buying what you cannot buy in your state, or handguns.
Law abiding citizens that pass a background check are assumed criminals.
Last edited:
