RVers state of residence

Status
Not open for further replies.
...I would suggest that a full time RV'er can be in a state with the intention to make a home there, which makes them legally able to buy firearms in that state.
Well no kidding. Thats been "hashed to death" yet you continue to ignore what shows intent to "make a home" in a state.



If it so happens that they don't have an ID from that state, they're not going to be able to buy from an FFL dealer, which leaves them with private sale as the only legal option.
Nonsense. There is no requirement to have ID from the state where the dealer is located. It's been explained, reexplained, ATF sources cited and linked and then reexplained another five times.....yet you continue to spout nonsense.

Just stop.
 
It's probably irrelevant, but are there any federal laws or regulations governing residency for VOTING purposes? I would be curious how that definition might impact this - basically, how similar are such definitions?

Seems to me that this is a question that is unlikely to get any real answer until and unless settled in court, unfortunately. Seems like it might be a rule that needs some clarification - but that would be a topic for a different forum.
 
First, I just spent about 30 minutes digging through Westlaw to see if there was any case law out there that would resolve this. I found none.

It's probably irrelevant, but are there any federal laws or regulations governing residency for VOTING purposes? I would be curious how that definition might impact this - basically, how similar are such definitions?

Seems to me that this is a question that is unlikely to get any real answer until and unless settled in court, unfortunately. Seems like it might be a rule that needs some clarification - but that would be a topic for a different forum.
Yes, this is irrelevant. "Residency" for voting purposes may be entirely different from "residency" for purposes of firearms transfers.

Let's keep on topic, please.
 
Who really cares? Not me.
You care, or at least you did until someone called you on it. You cared enough to write a whole paragraph about how someone who lives in an RV full time isn't a full time RV'er if they stay in one place for more than an as yet unspecified period of time.
Good grief man. It's been explained multiple times in this thread.o_O
It's been guessed at multiple times in this thread. Your opinion has not clearly been stated. The two lawyer/moderators in this thread have stated that they're not 100% sure about this question.
Well no kidding. Thats been "hashed to death" yet you continue to ignore what shows intent to "make a home" in a state.
I'm not ignoring anything, you just seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing.
Nonsense. There is no requirement to have ID from the state where the dealer is located.
I didn't say there was, you were just so anxious to find something else to argue about that you missed what I said. I said that the ID needed to be from the state where the prospective buyer was a resident (for the purposes of buying a firearm), not that it needed to be from the same state as the dealer.
Just stop.
No.
 
Sounds like, unless there’s a lawyer in here who has dealt with this before this whole thread is speculation.

MY OPINION is you should decide what you want more, a gun or no home. If you want a gun buy it in such a manner as no questions can possibly arise as to the legality i.e. from a big name FFL in a state to which you’re a resident before you go nomadic.

None of this even touches on then wisdom of keeping guns in a dwelling as easy to break into as an RV.
 
I didn't say there was, you were just so anxious to find something else to argue about that you missed what I said. I said that the ID needed to be from the state where the prospective buyer was a resident (for the purposes of buying a firearm), not that it needed to be from the same state as the dealer....
And once again........wrong.
 
And once again........wrong.
:rofl:Again? You have yet to point out something I was wrong about. I should have added the part about being able to use another form of government issued documentation showing the buyer's resident address in the event that the ID doesn't match the current residence. Not "wrong", but I will admit I should have added additional info.
 
One interesting fact about Florida, of which I was unaware, until recently, is
if you have residency, in more than one state, Florida being one of them, you can claim
Florida,
as your principle residence, regardless of how much time you spend, at residences, in other states.

So, IOW, a Snowbird can claim Florida, as their home-state, regardless, if they desire to do so.
 
Its a pattern we see quite often.;)



You have yet to point out something I was wrong about.
Posts #'s 10, 25, 51 and 58. And that's just my posts. ;)



I should have added the part about being able to use another form of government issued documentation showing the buyer's resident address in the event that the ID doesn't match the current residence. Not "wrong", but I will admit I should have added additional info.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda....but didn't. ;)
 
The two lawyer/moderators in this thread have stated that they're not 100% sure about this question.
What they mean by that is that they are not sure how you can be sure you're staying within the law. It's not a good thing that they're not sure, it's a bad thing.
Why? The law very clearly says that an ID or other proof of residency is required only when buying from a dealer, not from an individual.
You are confusing two different issues.

Whether buying from a dealer OR buying in a private transaction, there are residence requirements.

When buying from a dealer, the law clearly spells out how to prove those residence requirements and mandates that the buyer provide qualifying proof to the dealer.

When buying from a private individual, there is still a requirement of residence, but the law does not clearly spell out how to prove that the requirement is met nor does it place the onus on the seller to require proof nor on the buyer to provide it. That doesn't mean that residence is not required, it just means that we don't know exactly how we would have to prove residence if a transaction came into question and the federal legal system attempted a prosecution on the basis that the buyer and seller were not residents of the same state. This is a problem since the penalty for not being able to prove residency could result in a felony conviction.

So what can we do to prevent getting into this highly undesirable situation? Well, it's pretty much a given that if one can provide the proof required by the 4473 instructions***, they are going to be considered a resident. Could the requirements for a private sale be lower/easier to meet? It's possible--but we don't know that. There's nothing in the law that suggests that is true. There are no cases we can use as examples to draw conclusions from.
I'm sure that won't fly so your license plate on your RV shows what state you live in!
No, they merely show where a vehicle is registered.
Well, a full time RVer has to have a driver's license and some form of address for registration and insurance. Would that not be the default "residence" for this discussion?
Not unless the person is residing in the state where the license was issued and where the vehicle is registered and insured. It's clearly possible to have a license from one state and reside in another. It's even possible to have a license from one state and not have a residence in the U.S. at all. I have known people who lived out of the U.S. for years and still maintained drivers licenses in the states where they resided before they moved abroad.
I assumed someone who lived in an RV full time was a full time RV'er. How long can someone who lives in an RV full time have their RV parked in one spot before they're no longer considered a full time RV'er, in common parlance?
The 4473 form carefully spells out the requirements that must be met for a sale from a dealer. To be safe, it would be wise to meet the same requirements*** before engaging in a private firearms transaction.
In your opinion, is it possible for a "full time RV'er" to legally buy a firearm?
If they can provide the proof mandated by the 4473, then I think it's clear that they can legally buy a firearm. To be safe, it would be wise to meet the same requirements before engaging in a private firearms transaction.***

It is clear that in some cases, a "full time RV'er" would not be able to provide the proof mandated by the 4473 and further that they explicitly have no intent to reside in any particular location. In those cases, it is clear that they would not be able to legally buy a firearm due to not being a resident of any particular state--that would be true even though they might otherwise not be prohibited from buying/owning a firearm.
I understand that, but how then does a full time RVer go about buying a gun if they are "homeless by design"?
If they have no state of residence then they can't legally buy a gun. To buy a gun from a dealer one must be able to provide the mandated proof of residence or the dealer can't complete the sale. To buy a gun in a private transaction, both persons must be residents of the same state even though there is no requirement that the seller demand the proof or the buyer provide it. If a person isn't a resident of any state then they can't be a resident of the same state as the seller.
I would suggest that a full time RV'er can be in a state with the intention to make a home there, which makes them legally able to buy firearms in that state.
Is it possible that there could be a method to be a "full time RV'er" and still qualify as a resident of a particular state? I think that it probably is although I'm not sure how to spell out a surefire recipe for doing it and it would obviously depend on how one defines "full time RV'er". Does the fact that I think it's "probably possible" mean that every full time RV'er will qualify as a resident of a particular state? NOT AT ALL! In fact, it is likely that most of them won't.
Can a person be a citizen of the US but not of any of the states or territories thereof?
Absolutely. I was for many years. I was born a U.S. citizen but I was born outside of the U.S. and lived outside the U.S. for years. I had no residence inside the U.S. during that time. I don't know how I could have been a resident or citizen of any state. My parents met outside the U.S. and were married outside the U.S. They were from two different states and neither had a residence in the U.S. when they met/married/had me.

***Saying that one should be able to provide proof of residence or be able to meet the same requirements as a 4473 sale mandates does not mean that one IS required to provide proof under law. It's just a way to say that a person could, if necessary, provide proof of residence to meet the 4473 mandates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top