Lots of crying over the past few years about “criminalizing homelessness”.

I’m genuinely surprised a bright eyed and bushy tailed lawyer hasn’t tried arguing its unconstitutional to deny someone their second amendment rights because they don’t have a permanent address.

Attorneys don't do anything for free....what would one possibly gain from embarking on a crusade like this?

Yea, I mean lawyers never make a career from taking a case all the way to the Supreme Court....

Any pushback against infringement on our rights is a cause worth pursuing.

<---FFL/SOT
1. "permanent address" is not required, "current residence address" is.
2. Homeless person is free to buy from a nonlicensee. Only transfers from dealers require a 4473/NICS.
3. Homeless aren't the only ones who have difficulty with providing a current residence address and the gov issued photo ID or documentation showing that address....RVers often have the same issue.
4. It's been the law for over fifty years, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Iirc a guy got popped for having a pistol in his shopping cart”concealed “ carry sans license,

4473s are unconstitutional.

The address is not the problem, having an ID to match it is.

But if you can get LA or SF to allow:

Joe Blow
2nd tent on side walk 1st street
LA, CA

on your ID, you are GTG.

Find a Supreme Court justice and four friends and you've got something.

So what about states that require background checks for private sales?

Anyone without an address is effectively barred from exercising their 2A rights.

FPC regularly files lawsuits whose only purpose is to harass ATF, its why I love them.

1.) No. They're not. You know how I know? Because the courts say so. In America, that's how this works.

B.) 4473 forms are not "papers" on the gun purchaser. A 4473 is "papers" on the licensee. If you want to keep the ATF's permission to be engaged in business you have to keep records of what you do with each gun.

There is no federal law that says an individual must fill out a 4473 when buying a gun. There is a federal law that says an FFL can't transfer a gun without a 4473 . . . It's sort of like what an ATF inspector told me one time when I bitched about some rule: "You signed up for this." You walk into a gun shop to buy a gun, you're agreeing to go along with the rules they have to follow.

To be honest, I wouldn't even mind a 4473 if they weren't asking WHAT I bought.

They don't ask you what you bought. They ask the dealer what he sold. That may seem like a distinction with no difference, but once you understand what a 4473 form is, it makes sense.

I used to be an FFL. There were lots of times I turned away sales because the buyer couldn't verify his address*. Most of the time, it didn't bother me a bit. If you can't keep your shit squared away enough to be able to show where you live, well, that's on you. I can only remember one time I felt bad about it. Some old man, living in an old RV on some other dude's land. The guy was harmless. Probably a veteran. Didn't have a pot to piss in. Wanted to buy a Heritage Rough Rider. But he had an expired ID with an old address and didn't know the address of where his camper was parked. I really wanted to sell him the gun, but there wasn't any way to make the 4473 pass muster. That one case really brought home the point to me. Yes, homeless people have the right to defend themselves. They can own guns. But they can't buy from a licensed FFL because the law requires you to prove residency.


* As for all the other clowns walking around with an old driver's license . . . It's not that hard. You have a bunch of options. 1.) Get your ass down to the DMV and get a new license with your current address (That's what you're supposed to do), 2.) provide a second, government-issued document that shows your current address (go to Walmart and get a fishing license), or 3.) write your old (driver's license) address on the 4473 and don't say a word about it. If you can't manage one of those things, I don't feel sorry for you.

No, they are just prohibited from acquiring a firearm. They can still keep and bear arms.

Attorneys do represent clients all of the time for free...... They might not in this instance, but to say they "don't do anything for free" as some ex cathedra statement is preposterous.

And to take it that literally instead of recognizing his clear meaning is equally preposterous.

Attorneys work for money. How many clients have you had to explain that they might have a valid claim, but it would cost more than they could get in return? You help them realize that attorneys cost money, and that cost-benefit analysis often doesn't work out in the client's favor.

There's a very real truth to "attorneys don't work for free," because outside of a handful of relatively simple (and relatively infrequent) pro bono matters, or some particular cause that the attorney truly believes in, it's not incorrect to say that they don't work for free. Most firms aren't going to tolerate billable time being eaten up by pro bono matters.

And I absolutely agree that a case of the magnitude the OP is suggesting would NOT be pro bono. It might be free for the specific plaintiff, but it would be paid for by donations. That's the operating method for SAF, FPC, GOA, etc. Even they don't work for free. They just bill the time to someone else, distributed across all their donors.