Minimum conditions to maintain a CCP as a "Resident"?


MarkPA

New member
I am NOT now a resident of LA, nor do I have any particular ties to LA. I'm planning to move outside the country (Mexico) whereupon, I would not be a resident of ANY State. That, then, becomes somewhat of a problem particularly as respects purchasing a handgun in ANY State; there would be NO State where I would be a resident. Under these circumstances, it's probably a good idea to leave my current (northern) State of residence, sojourn in a southern State where I would establish residence as minimally as possible, acquire a driver's license and CCP, and then move on to Mexico. Thereupon, I IMAGINE that I MIGHT be able to retain an IN-State driver's license and CCP in that State and retain the right to buy a handgun in that State. (I see that LA issues CCPs only to "residents". I'm willing to acquire LA residency; just NOT MAINTAIN LA residency.)
I have no inclination to violate any Federal or State law. So, I'd like to know if LA laws are flexible enough to make it feasible for me to RETAIN legal residence - for purposes of holding a drivers license and a CCP - while not spending any substantial amount of time in LA.
I presume I could maintain some nominal ties to LA. E.g., maintain a physical address; visit the State once or twice a year. However, I would not be able - nor would I be willing - to designate LA as my domicile (primary residence) nor even a part-time residence for any material period of time. E.g., I could buy a small plot of land/house in LA but not actually live there.
Any input would be appreciated; including, that it's not worth pursuing in LA.
Thanks
Mark
 

CarryNM

New member
If you are going to Mexico, I strongly suggest that you forget guns of any type, unless you are in the mexican military or a police officer there. You are looking at a good long time in the local "Hotel".
 

NavyLCDR

New member
Won't work in any state because of the definition of state of residence in Federal law:

I have no inclination to violate any Federal or State law.

Thanks
Mark

Well, the minimum residency requirement, in Federal law, to purchase a firearm in a state is to be present in a state WITH THE INTENTION OF MAKING A HOME THERE. Doen't sound to me like you intend to make a home in any state, you intend to make a home in Mexico. Therefore, according to Federal law, it would be illegal for you to purchase any firearm in any state once you move to Mexico. Merely keeping a driver's license somewhere or even a CCW permit does not make you a resident for the purposes of firearms transactions.

27 CFR 478.11:
eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations

§ 478.11 Meaning of terms.
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. If an individual is on active duty as a member of the Armed Forces, the individual's State of residence is the State in which his or her permanent duty station is located, as stated in 18 U.S.C. 921(b).
 

MarkPA

New member
Thanks for the replies.
As to Mexico, that's a whole different ball of wax. Having a lawful gun in the home is absolutely no problem in Mexico. Carrying outside the home IS more-or-less of a problem. Importing a gun into Mexico is illegal. In any case, Mexico is not germane to my US question.

As to US Federal law, I see that problem; thanks. It would seem that I could go to LA with a nominal intention of "making a home" which might be fine for a moment. But, so doing (in any State whatsoever, including my current northern State) doesn't seem to serve my purpose by this reading. Carrying a LA driver's license may allow me to appear to be a resident; however, for the purposes of complying with Federal law, I couldn't buy a handgun in LA.

That problem MIGHT change if a current suite against Holder were to succeed. The plaintiffs are US citizens not US resident suing for the right to buy handguns in any State. That would seem to solve my problem. If that suite does not succeed, then I'll still have a problem.

It's interesting that the relevant federal law uses the term "home". That strikes me as really odd. The two terms that would usually be used are "domicile" and "resident". I don't want to be "domiciled" in the US. I think I can be a part-time "resident" in a US State without causing me a problem. So, perhaps my question would have an answer in terms of what LA State law might require to establish part-time "residency" short of full-time residency and not "domicile". Now, then, if LA regarded me as a part-time resident, my question would change to: Is a person who is regarded by a State as a part-time resident able to maintain that he has "the intention of making a home in that State"?

It would be wonderful if someone could answer the Federal question. It would be at least helpful if anyone knew enough about LA part-time residency law to at least answer the LA State law question. Obviously, if LA State law were too onerous then that would rule-out LA as a prospective State in which to maintain a part-time residency.

Thanks
Mark
 

NavyLCDR

New member
It doesn't matter if state law considers you a resident or not. The Code of Federal Regulations linked to above goes on further to provide examples of temporary residency. Pay particular attention to Example 1 which I think would most fit the description of what you are proposing to do. Just substitute "Mexico" in place of "State X":

Example 1. A maintains a home in State X. A travels to State Y on a hunting, fishing, business, or other type of trip. A does not become a resident of State Y by reason of such trip.

Example 2.
A 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.

Example 3. A, an alien, travels to the United States on a three-week vacation to State X. A does not have a state of residence in State X because A does not have the intention of making a home in State X while on vacation. This is true regardless of the length of the vacation.

Example 4. A, an alien, travels to the United States to work for three years in State X. A rents a home in State X, moves his personal possessions into the home, and his family resides with him in the home. A intends to reside in State X during the 3-year period of his employment. A is a resident of State X.
 

MarkPA

New member
Hi NavyLCDR,
These examples are very helpful; thanks.
The trick is to see how to fit one's facts and circumstances to fit the requirement.
In example #2, ". . . in State Y for the weekends or the summer months of the year. . . . during the time that A actually resides in State Y, A is a resident of State Y." Very well, then, it seems to be a question of establishing the incidents of residence in State Y. What might satisfy sufficient incidents of residence? Probably more than ownership of a "2 hole'er"; yet, maybe ownership of a "hunting lodge" to which one goes on multiple weekends per year.

It doesn't seem necessary to spend the entirety of June, July and August in State Y. Nor does it seem necessary to spend each of the 52 weekends per year in State Y. It does seem necessary to establish more incidents of residency beyond a ritual attendance at Marti Gras each year.
Thanks very much,
Mark
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,572
Messages
625,629
Members
74,555
Latest member
JonasEichmann
Top