Question please NH gun law

[The5thDentist]

mlaboss FTW!

+6

 

[Len-2A Training]

BATFE has made it clear in their Q&A in their published regulations that weekend/summer/winter homes do qualify you for dual residency when you are there.

IANAL, but I do believe that folks are reading too much into the 2010 quote above. I do believe that quote is referring to people in situations like myself. I vacation in NH but stay in a hotel, I don't own it, I don't lease it, every time I'm there I have a different address (room number), etc. I am NOT a dual resident. If I owned or leased a home/condo/apartment and stayed in the same place for periods of time on a regular basis (intent to make a home, even if part-time), then dual residency is in play.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/atf-p-5300-4pdf/download - quote is from page 178.

(B12) May a person (who is not an alien) who resides in one State and owns property in another State purchase a handgun in either State?
If a person maintains a home in 2 States and resides in both States for certain periods of the year, he or she may, during the period of time the person actually resides in a particular State, purchase a handgun in that State. However, simply owning property in another State does not qualify the person to purchase a handgun in that State.
[27 CFR 478.11]

 

[bigblue]

Again, the intent is key: If you make a "home" in another state for part of the year, it doesn't matter if you own the property. If your intent is to be transient then you are not making a home. I had professors who lived in NYC but kept a condo by the University where they stayed during the week while they taught class. Their intention was never to make this condo their home so despite the fact that they spent more time in the condo than their home, they were not a part time resident. Staying some place regularly for a length of time doesn't make you a resident. By the same token, people who rent apartments are still residents despite not owning the property: The difference is INTENT.

This is all more complicated than it needs to be though: Intent to make a home is yours to prove and if you put your ducks in a row, its easy enough to do.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Again, the intent is key: If you make a "home" in another state for part of the year, it doesn't matter if you own the property. If your intent is to be transient then you are not making a home. I had professors who lived in NYC but kept a condo by the University where they stayed during the week while they taught class. Their intention was never to make this condo their home so despite the fact that they spent more time in the condo than their home, they were not a part time resident. Staying some place regularly for a length of time doesn't make you a resident. By the same token, people who rent apartments are still residents despite not owning the property: The difference is INTENT.

This is all more complicated than it needs to be though: Intent to make a home is yours to prove and if you put your ducks in a row, its easy enough to do.

You seem to be attributing "permanence" to the "intent to make a home" issue, as in a permanent residence as opposed to a part-time residence.

Try this on for size. https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/atf-p-5300-4pdf/download p. 39

State of residence. The State in which an individual resides. An individual resides in a State if he or she is present in a State with the intention of making a home in that State. <rest of this paragraph describe military and aliens>

Example 2. A is a U.S. citizen and maintains a home in State X and a home in State Y. A resides in State X except for weekends or the summer months of the year and in State Y for the weekends or the summer months of the year. During the time that A actually resides in State X, A is a resident of State X, and during the time that A actually resides in State Y, A is a resident of State Y.

To me (IANAL) the above example is in direct contradiction to what you state above wrt the professors actions.

 

[bigblue]

Reading comprehension is not strong in this thread.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Reading comprehension is not strong in this thread.

I agree!

 

[soam]

Or maybe, just hear me out, maybe the ATF has made multiple rulings over the years with slightly vague and possibly contradictory language, and it is possible for people to pick out specific snippets of language from each of those rulings to support their particular positions.

Let's look at the language in ruing 2010-6 in its context:

A person’s “State of residence” is defined by regulation in 27 CFR 478.11 as “the State in
which an individual resides. An individual resides in a State if he or she is present in a
State with the intention of making a home in that State.” Ownership of a home or land
within a given State is not sufficient, by itself, to establish a State of residence. However,
ownership of a home or land within a particular State is not required to establish presence
and intent to make a home in that State. Furthermore, temporary travel, such as short-term
stays, vacations, or other transient acts in a State are not sufficient to establish a State of
residence because the individual demonstrates no intention of making a home in that State.

There are a few key pieces in here:
1) Owning a home or land is not sufficient, by itself, to establish a State of residence.
2) Owning a home or land is not required to establish a State of residence.
3) Temporary travel (short-term stays, vacations, other transient acts) is not sufficient to establish a State of residence because it demonstrates no intention of making a home

That damn "intent" word is the worst ****ing thing in the world, because it instantly injects a million layers of vagueness. What the **** is "making a home" and what exactly does it mean to "intend" to make a home? Do I have to live there for a specific length of time per year? Do I have to go to town meetings? Do I have to put a ****ing "Home Sweet Home" doormat on my porch?

The point of item (1) is to clarify that just owning some property doesn't make you a resident.
The point of item (2) is to let people who don't own their homes (apartment renters, etc) buy guns in the state they live in.
The point of item (3) is to keep people from saying "well I rented a hotel room here in NH, guess I'm a NH resident!"

The sticking point is the interaction between (1), (3), and "intention of making a home".

If I own a second house in NH and I live there during the summer, am I a resident of NH during the summer?
What if I call that house my "summer house"?
What if I call that house my "summer vacation house"?
What if I call it my "second house"?

See what I'm getting at? We've entered into "is it legal to sell a gun right after I buy it?" or "can I shoulder a pistol stabilizing brace?" territory. The answer is, "it depends on your intent", which is the stupidest ****ing thing on the planet. Two people, taking the exact same actions, one is committing a crime and the other isn't because of some vague notion of "intent".

So you know what you do? You read the rest of the ****ing ruling.

Held further, the intention of making a home in a State must be demonstrated to a
Federal firearms licensee by presenting valid identification documents. Such documents
include, but are not limited to, driver’s licenses, voter registration, tax records, or vehicle
registration.

So you know how the ATF says you demonstrate intention of making a home? By presenting valid identification documents. Period. End of story.

 

[bigblue]

ATF should be a store not a .gov agency. I rest my case.

 

[strangenh]

ATF should be a store not a .gov agency. I rest my case.

Oh, I thought that was more or less Hooksett Rd.

 

[Oldarmy]

Oh, I thought that was more or less Hooksett Rd.

That's an idea. We could call it ATFF road. Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and fireworks road.

 

[PEW]

Oh, I thought that was more or less Hooksett Rd.

I used to live on hooksett road. It had its benefits. Being able to walk to Riley's can be dangerous for the budget.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk