Military member buying gun on leave. Advice appreciated.

[jnichols2]

jnichols2, you've cited 50 U.S.C. § 4001 repeatedly. That statute is entirely irrelevant to the issues at hand here. In the quote below, I've emphasized why:

Hogwash. When dealing with the law, "a single word of phrase" can mean the difference between riches and ruin.

So, it's OK for you to repeatedly cite a "single phrase", but you reject my citing the overall intent and purpose of a law that disagrees with your position.

I continue to cite that law because IT IS relevant.

It determines that a serviceman that is sent overseas to defend his country is afforded the protection of not losing his domicile by doing so.

However; I am fully prepared to consider your caselaw holding that the Soldiers' And Sailors' Relief Act DOES NOT protect any right associated with the acquisition or possession of firearms.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by jnichols2

So, it's OK for you to repeatedly cite a "single phrase", but you reject my citing the overall intent and purpose of a law that disagrees with your position.

Yes. I've cited a phrase that's actually in the operative part of the statute. It doesn't say "for tax purposes or civil rights purposes," nor "or for other purposes." It says "for taxation purposes."

Further, it's a basic tenet of statutory construction that when a general statute competes with a specific one, and both cover the conduct at issue, the specific statute applies. " A well established canon of statutory interpretation succinctly captures the problem: '[I]t is a commonplace of statutory construction that the specific governs the general.'” RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S. Ct. 2065, 2070-71 (2012)

Finally, as another basic tenet of statutory construction, the intent of a law is really only important if and when the language of a statute is ambiguous. "Our review of the six claims recognized by the Ninth Circuit requires us to interpret a number of ERISA's provisions. As in any case of statutory construction, our analysis begins with 'the language of the statute.' . . . . And where the statutory language provides a clear answer, it ends there as well." Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U.S. 432, 438 (1999).

Is there some ambiguity in "for taxation purposes" of which I am unaware?

Originally Posted by jnichols2

I continue to cite that law because IT IS relevant.

I suspect that you keep citing it because you want it to be relevant. Unless and until an appellate court rules that it is, it isn't.

Originally Posted by jnichols2

It determines that a serviceman that is sent overseas to defend his country is afforded the protection of not losing his domicile by doing so.

For tax purposes, that's correct. You have provided no authority for the proposition that it provides anything remotely similar for purposes of purchasing a firearm, though.

Originally Posted by jnichols2

However; I am fully prepared to consider your caselaw holding that the Soldiers' And Sailors' Relief Act DOES NOT protect any right associated with the acquisition or possession of firearms.

I have Westlaw and have run a searches for "firearm," "gun," and "pistol." for the entire Servicemembers' Relief Act (which I think used to be called "Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief Act," but am not sure). I have also scanned the notes of decisions on any section that I thought would enlighten us on this issue. I found no appellate cases ruling on the issue of whether the SRA has any impact on a service member's residency status for purposes of the GCA.

Do you know of anything contrary to that, other than your bald assertions? A case? A law review article?

Last, but not least, you cited this:

Originally Posted by Congress

The purposes of this chapter are--
(1) to provide for, strengthen, and expedite the national defense through protection extended by this chapter to servicemembers of the United States to enable such persons to devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the Nation; and
(2) to provide for the temporary suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings and transactions that may adversely affect the civil rights of servicemembers during their military service.

(emphasis by jnichols2)

Note the language "to provide for temporary suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings and transactions."

(1) Since when is the purchase of a firearm a "judicial or administrative proceeding or transaction?" It's a transaction, but it's neither judicial or administrative.

(2) It is "to provide for temporary suspension" of the affected activities. Even if a firearm purchase were covered (& I don't think it is), the SRA does not appear intended to allow them to go through, but only to suspend the affected activities.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jnichols2

...Hypothetical:

OP was born and raised in Florida, and was a Florida resident when he joined the military. They send him to a base in Texas (or Japan).

He intends to return to his home state after his hitch.

He is now home on leave in Florida.

According to Frank, TWO things are required to be a resident of either state:
1. if he or she is present in a State
2. with the intention of making a home in that State

Which state is he a resident of?? You seem to say he is not a resident of either.
....

According to 27 CFR 478.11, he is a resident of wherever his permanent duty station is. According to ATF Rul. 2010-6 he might also be considered a resident of a State in which he is present and which he intends to make his home. With regard to the OP's question, we don't have sufficient information to establish that he intends to make his home in Florida.

With regard to the OP's circumstances, he needs to consult with a lawyer who can review all relevant facts and offer a professional opinion as to whether those facts would support the OP's claim that Florida is his home when present there. That is beyond the scope of an Internet gun forum.

Originally Posted by jnichols2

...According to you, this entire law was written for the purpose of defining the tax code....

No, the entire law, Chapter 50 of Title 50 of the United States Code is broader. But the sole purpose of Section 4001 of Title 50, the statute you keep referring to, is to address a service member's residency for tax purpose, and for nothing else.

Originally Posted by jnichols2

...Considering that bearing arms is a "civil right", that appears to be much broader than where he pays taxes, does it not?

Now, try to take the entire situation in context, considering the text and intent of both laws.

Try very hard to not be myopic, and hold the entire context, and not quibble over a single word or phrase....

Phooey! The statutes say what they say. If you contend that 50 USC 4001 has broader application to the question of residency for the purposes of buying a gun, it's your burden to support that contention with reference to controlling court decisions.

Originally Posted by jnichols2

...I have continued to pursue this because I feel strongly that I am right....

You might feel strongly that you're right. But two real life lawyers (Spats McGee and I) have been explaining why the law does not support you. If you believe that the law should be different or should be applied differently, you need to address yourself to Congress and the courts, not an Internet gun forum.

[jnichols2]

I was hoping you would be kind enough to answer the two questions I posed.


1:

OP was born and raised in Florida, and was a Florida resident when he joined the military. They send him to a base in Japan.

He intends to return to his home state after his hitch.
He is now home on leave in Florida.
According to the Servicemans Relief Act, his "domicile" remains in Florida.

According to Frank, TWO things are required to be a resident of either state:
1. "if he or she is present in a State"
2. "with the intention of making a home in that State"

Which state is he a resident of?? You seem to say he is not a resident of either.


2:
Considering that bearing arms is a "civil right", that appears to be much broader than where he pays taxes, does it not?

Can the OP legally purchase a handgun in his "home state" of Florida?
In Texas (Japan)?
Anywhere???

Should he be denied the civil right to purchase a handgun in Florida? If not, where does he have a right to buy one?


Surely, your expertise can answer those questions from a simple man?

The answers to those questions are sufficient.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jnichols2

...I was hoping you would be kind enough to answer the two questions I posed....

Those questions have been answered.

[Tactical Jackalope]

You need to be a Florida resident in order to purchase a firearm here. I've worked for many gun shops. And I've dealt with situations like this before as well. And as for the license, if the address that he wrote down on the 4473 is different from his license he needs to show a utility bill from the address written of at least 3 months.

[Al Norris]

Considering the only information we have, as it concerns this thread, is what the OP has stated in his 2 posts; the actual legalities, as it regards purchasing firearms, have been cited. Anything else is pure speculation.

Therefore, asked and answered.

Closed.