1. Len beat me to it, but the quoted material is from the regulations promulgated by BATF, not the statute enacted by Congress, and the statute controls.
2. The statement part of the regulations, to wit: " 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." is more or less correct, so long as it is understood that "resides" in the tail end means permanent, indefinite residence. The error is in Example 2. The examples are not the statement of the legal rule, and the error in the Example is patent.
(Not to make this overly complicated (probably already too late), but the world of federal administrative regulations is divided into two provinces. There are "interpretive regulations," which all agencies may promulgate. These do not purport to make law and are not enacted under any delegation from Congress to make law. They are not entitled to the force of law or to deference by a Court. The sole function of "interpretive regulations" is to give the world notice as to how the agency interprets the governing statute. Then there are also "legislative regulations." These may be promulgated only to the extent of a statutory authorization by Congress to the agency to "fill in the blanks." For instance, a statute may say that "the maximum permissible level of tritium emissions into the navigable waters is that level determined by the Agency from time to time to be below the level of injury to the average exposed individual." (This is just an example, though there are regulations of this sort.) With a "legislative regulation," once the agency supplies the specific, the Court is limited to ruling on whether it was delegated the power to do so; if so, its exercise of that power has the force of law. I'm reasonably certain that the BATF regulation we are looking at is an "interpretive regulation.")
3. I say again that I do not know what would happen if an individual, relying on the erroneous Example 2, purchased a handgun in the state in which he had a summer home but was not the state of his domicile. But neither would I risk it (or advise anyone else to) in order to find out.
2. The statement part of the regulations, to wit: " 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." is more or less correct, so long as it is understood that "resides" in the tail end means permanent, indefinite residence. The error is in Example 2. The examples are not the statement of the legal rule, and the error in the Example is patent.
(Not to make this overly complicated (probably already too late), but the world of federal administrative regulations is divided into two provinces. There are "interpretive regulations," which all agencies may promulgate. These do not purport to make law and are not enacted under any delegation from Congress to make law. They are not entitled to the force of law or to deference by a Court. The sole function of "interpretive regulations" is to give the world notice as to how the agency interprets the governing statute. Then there are also "legislative regulations." These may be promulgated only to the extent of a statutory authorization by Congress to the agency to "fill in the blanks." For instance, a statute may say that "the maximum permissible level of tritium emissions into the navigable waters is that level determined by the Agency from time to time to be below the level of injury to the average exposed individual." (This is just an example, though there are regulations of this sort.) With a "legislative regulation," once the agency supplies the specific, the Court is limited to ruling on whether it was delegated the power to do so; if so, its exercise of that power has the force of law. I'm reasonably certain that the BATF regulation we are looking at is an "interpretive regulation.")
3. I say again that I do not know what would happen if an individual, relying on the erroneous Example 2, purchased a handgun in the state in which he had a summer home but was not the state of his domicile. But neither would I risk it (or advise anyone else to) in order to find out.