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