If I am a resident of MA and buy a place in NH that I am the sole owner and occupant of when on vacation does that make me a NH resident for purposes of firearms purchases?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Owning a vacation cabin in NH
- Thread starter News Shooter
- Start date
It might, especially if you establish the indicia of residency, such as getting a NH driver's license, registering a car there, and registering to vote.
This would be difficult to justify if all you did was go there for a week or two, keeping your MA DL in your pocket, and your MA-registered car out front.
For federal firearms law purposes, you are only a part-time resident for firearms purposes for that period of time you are actually resident in that state. In other words, if you are a resident only in the summertime, you could not buy handguns there in the wintertime as if you were a resident then too.
This would be difficult to justify if all you did was go there for a week or two, keeping your MA DL in your pocket, and your MA-registered car out front.
For federal firearms law purposes, you are only a part-time resident for firearms purposes for that period of time you are actually resident in that state. In other words, if you are a resident only in the summertime, you could not buy handguns there in the wintertime as if you were a resident then too.
Well, according to the feds you must be there for more than a certain period
of time continiously, I believe it's like 90 days or something like that.
There are very few dealers who will let you purchase handguns with
something besides an NH DL anyways, so unless you're going to do a
full blown residency switch, even trying to buy stuff there is generally
not going to happen. (unless it's a rifle/shotgun.).
Theres a TON of threads on "residency" on this board that can be
found using the search function. In many scenarios there is no
definitive answer, but at least you can get more information from
reading those threads.
-Mike
of time continiously, I believe it's like 90 days or something like that.
There are very few dealers who will let you purchase handguns with
something besides an NH DL anyways, so unless you're going to do a
full blown residency switch, even trying to buy stuff there is generally
not going to happen. (unless it's a rifle/shotgun.).
Theres a TON of threads on "residency" on this board that can be
found using the search function. In many scenarios there is no
definitive answer, but at least you can get more information from
reading those threads.
-Mike
Thanks
I tried everything except "residency"
I tried everything except "residency"
If you apply for a NH DL, you must give up your MA DL to aviod being in violation of NH law. Beyond that, the only requirement for purchasing is the NH DL. If you don't mind losing your MA DL, you probably could go ahead. But with the restrictions back in MA, would it be worth it? Could you transport anything purchased back home? That could be a problem.
In fact the news just published a report of the arrest of a ME resident purchasing a handgun in NH, claiming residency. The firearm showed up during the arrest of a drug dealer.
In fact the news just published a report of the arrest of a ME resident purchasing a handgun in NH, claiming residency. The firearm showed up during the arrest of a drug dealer.
It's illegal to drive in MA without a MA DL if you spend more than 30 days/year living here (MA).
Thus the dilemma for dual-residents. I don't really know if there is a way to work around this legally.
Back >30 years ago it was common for folks to get dual DLs without giving one up. I did that when I moved to CT in 1971, kept my MA DL with my old address (Parents lived there) and CT DL with CT address. When I moved back to MA 3 years later, I just let my CT DL expire and did a change of address on my MA DL. I don't think I could pull this off legally today (it was legal back in the 1970s).
One thought that popped into my head . . . can you get a NH ID (like MA issues to those without a DL) up there with your NH address? And if so, will NH dealers honor it during a "residency" (must be for more than a week or two although Feds are silent on any "specific minimum time").
So Feds say that you can do it, but from a practical viewpoint it is either very difficult or impossible.
Thus the dilemma for dual-residents. I don't really know if there is a way to work around this legally.
Back >30 years ago it was common for folks to get dual DLs without giving one up. I did that when I moved to CT in 1971, kept my MA DL with my old address (Parents lived there) and CT DL with CT address. When I moved back to MA 3 years later, I just let my CT DL expire and did a change of address on my MA DL. I don't think I could pull this off legally today (it was legal back in the 1970s).
One thought that popped into my head . . . can you get a NH ID (like MA issues to those without a DL) up there with your NH address? And if so, will NH dealers honor it during a "residency" (must be for more than a week or two although Feds are silent on any "specific minimum time").
So Feds say that you can do it, but from a practical viewpoint it is either very difficult or impossible.
NO. Check the BATFE's FAQs page:
I own two weeks of a California condo - doesn't mean I can buy guns there. And a vacation home is not likely to qualify unless you take some seriously long vacations!
Last edited:
I suspect that the purpose of the above-quoted BATFE Reg is for "snow birds" . . . those that spend 4-6 months in FL each year and then come North in the Summer. It wasn't designed for the 2-week vacation/year or the person who goes to NH on Friday night and returns "home" on Sunday night every weekend.
The reason I asked originally
is because I world with a guy who lives six months in MA and six months in NH (May thru October). I don't know how he does the drivers license thing. I'll have to ask.
I certainly understand the time shares wouldn't qualify.
Anyway, thanks for the info
is because I world with a guy who lives six months in MA and six months in NH (May thru October). I don't know how he does the drivers license thing. I'll have to ask.
I certainly understand the time shares wouldn't qualify.
Anyway, thanks for the info
Start a corporation in NH (and maintain it). Have the corporation buy/own what you want.
Quite simple MASS says no supressors, so I have corporation in Maine just for gun stuff. Corporation owns "my" suppressors and they are secured at my "corporate headquarters" in Maine...
I see no reason you could not do the same in NH.
The thing is though, can an FFL transfer a Title I firearm to a
corporation? I know corp/trust wallhack works for C3 stuff but I can
imagine that an FFL would give you funny looks if you asked them to sell
you a gun which belongs to your corporation.
-Mike
I have heard somewhere that you may only have one "permanent residence", and in order to be a NH citizen you must have lived there for X (I believe it's 6) months.
Could be wrong though. IANAL, or even close![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Could be wrong though. IANAL, or even close
I have heard somewhere that you may only have one "permanent residence", and in order to be a NH citizen you must have lived there for X (I believe it's 6) months.
Could be wrong though. IANAL, or even close
I drove into NH on a Wednesday, closed on my house on Thursday, went to the DMV with paperwork from PSNH showing the utilities in my name on the following Tuesday, got my DL, and bought my first gun in NH on that Friday. So, I'm going to say, "No," there no "x month" residency requirement in NH.
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Discussions about "residence" have to proceed carefully, because the term can mean different things in different contexts.
At common law, as applied to a republic such as the United States, a person can be a "resident" (the proper term is domiciliary) of only one state at any given time. One is born a domiciliary of the state of which one's parents (or, if no known father, one's mother) was a domiciliary, and that remains your domicile until you change it. A change of domicile occurs when a person physically goes to a different state with a present intention to remain there indefinitely.
Nothing in the common law definition of domicile requires a "residency time" or "fraction of time present." Likewise, such things as a driver's license, voter registration or the like are not part of the definition of domicile, though some of these things may demonstrate domicile because only domiciliaries can acquire them.
As you may begin to perceive, determining whether some is or is not a domiciliary of a particular state can sometimes be less than straightforward. As a result, agencies and bureaucrats who face that question sometimes come up with tests, and some of these tests make it into statute or regulation. When this happens, you should realize that the statutory definition has become governing for whatever purpose the statute was enacted, and no longer is common law domicile the governing standard.
And, of course, politics sometimes exerts a wee influence. For instance, in a lot of places with a bunch of colleges and universities, liberal lawmakers confer the right to vote on college students. As should be obvious, most of these students are not true domiciliaries of their campus's state, since they came to it for a limited purpose and intend to return "home" after graduation. But college students tend to vote liberal, and so long as liberals make the rules, enrolling college students increases a liberal incumbent's probability of re-election.
And then, on occasion (rare occasion) pragmatics may enter into the equation. The quoted position of BATF may well be that there is no practical reason for treating someone who has enough of a connection to State X as a "non-resident" barred from patronizing his local gun store, and hence the recognition of what would be an impossibility at common law, namely dual state "residence."
Domicile often trips up law students and is a favored topic for those who write questions for the bar exam. My advice to young associates at the firm was to stay away from the term "resident" except where common law domicile in fact provided the standard (such as the probate of a will), and instead ask, "Is the person qualified for X under Y statute?"
At common law, as applied to a republic such as the United States, a person can be a "resident" (the proper term is domiciliary) of only one state at any given time. One is born a domiciliary of the state of which one's parents (or, if no known father, one's mother) was a domiciliary, and that remains your domicile until you change it. A change of domicile occurs when a person physically goes to a different state with a present intention to remain there indefinitely.
Nothing in the common law definition of domicile requires a "residency time" or "fraction of time present." Likewise, such things as a driver's license, voter registration or the like are not part of the definition of domicile, though some of these things may demonstrate domicile because only domiciliaries can acquire them.
As you may begin to perceive, determining whether some is or is not a domiciliary of a particular state can sometimes be less than straightforward. As a result, agencies and bureaucrats who face that question sometimes come up with tests, and some of these tests make it into statute or regulation. When this happens, you should realize that the statutory definition has become governing for whatever purpose the statute was enacted, and no longer is common law domicile the governing standard.
And, of course, politics sometimes exerts a wee influence. For instance, in a lot of places with a bunch of colleges and universities, liberal lawmakers confer the right to vote on college students. As should be obvious, most of these students are not true domiciliaries of their campus's state, since they came to it for a limited purpose and intend to return "home" after graduation. But college students tend to vote liberal, and so long as liberals make the rules, enrolling college students increases a liberal incumbent's probability of re-election.
And then, on occasion (rare occasion) pragmatics may enter into the equation. The quoted position of BATF may well be that there is no practical reason for treating someone who has enough of a connection to State X as a "non-resident" barred from patronizing his local gun store, and hence the recognition of what would be an impossibility at common law, namely dual state "residence."
Domicile often trips up law students and is a favored topic for those who write questions for the bar exam. My advice to young associates at the firm was to stay away from the term "resident" except where common law domicile in fact provided the standard (such as the probate of a will), and instead ask, "Is the person qualified for X under Y statute?"
Let's assume one owns two homes- one in NH and one in MA. Let's assume that he/she lives in each home for 6 months/yr. Never mind the DL issue- what the heck would happen when a dealer does a NICS check whe he/she tried to purchase a firearm? I can't imagine they could reconcile both residences for one person.
Nothing. There is no verification of residency in a NICS check. If that
was an absolute requirement of NICS, it would fail more than it would
pass. NICS only checks for the existence of known felon/looney/prohibited person
grade criminals against the information supplied by the person trying
to buy the gun. If enough of the intrinsics don't match, the person
is approved, and if some match (but aren't 100%) then its a delay. If there's
a 100% match (or near 100%) then its a deny.
-Mike
someone asked this question once when i was in a gunshop...if they say had a house in ma and a house in florida and spent the winter in florida and summers here which state would they be a resident of...the guy behind the counter said whichever state you last voted in would prove residency
The guy behind the counter was a gun shop owner, not a lawyer. He was wrong as a matter of law, but had a good practical outlook.
Having voted someplace does not "prove" that that place is, or even was at the time of the voting, the person's residence. Rather, in order to evaluate a person's residence, you have to chart where he was born and then each move of abode since, with the reasons and circumstances for the change.
On the other hand, most places require one to be a resident in order to vote (and this is mandatory as a matter of federal law for elections for Congressional representatives), so the fact that someone voted in a given state at a particular time "proves" (a) that the person thought he was a resident of that state at that time and (b) some registrar of voters seemed to accept the claim.
