Senate Bill 761: Lower pistol length definition to 26 inches

TheQ said:

Here we go again. Wasn't there already a thread with over 100 posts debating this? Can someone go dig up the link to alleviate the need to re-churn the issue?

Click to expand...

I posted it because of the date it passed, sorry if it has been been discussed over 100 times, I didn't notice it,,,,,
(Senate Bill 761: Lower pistol length definition to 26 inches
Passed 109 to 0 in the House on May 31, 2012)

Senate Bill 761

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2011-SEBH-0761.pdf

As amended May 24, 2012

I was thinking about it, and I remembered that most states, per federal law, allow rifles with stocks that fold to less than 26" but fold out to more than 26". Michigan doesn't, and I don't believe this will change that.

However, I do believe that if needed we can design quick detach stocks for legit federal law pistols which have barrels of at least 16". A lanyard and a carefully designed detent ball system that slides in and locks on shouldn't be hard at all to fabricate in a garage with a basic set of tools. As needed, barrel length can be upped with permanently attached flash or sound suppressors.

Yooper said:

I would say making it so a class of firearm that currently needs to be registered, and eliminating the need to register them is a pro gun vote, not an anti-gun vote.

Click to expand...

How is it EXACTLY that if any person moves to MI after Jan 2 2013 they can no longer carry a "class of firearm" a pro gun vote?

There is a new drug that is going around (refered to as bath salts) causing people to feel no pain, so a hand gun might not be enough to stop a threat, with your thinking a person that moves to MI on Jan 2 2013 is now SOL if they are to need a bigger gun outside the house. Those of us already here will be subject to paper checks now where as we were not before.
Thank you!

Sarah Brady thinks the same way those who are for this bill, make it so a gun is less likely to be used and you have a victory.

Michigander said:

I was thinking about it, and I remembered that most states, per federal law, allow rifles with stocks that fold to less than 26" but fold out to more than 26". Michigan doesn't, and I don't believe this will change that.

However, I do believe that if needed we can design quick detach stocks for legit federal law pistols which have barrels of at least 16". A lanyard and a carefully designed detent ball system that slides in and locks on shouldn't be hard at all to fabricate in a garage with a basic set of tools. As needed, barrel length can be upped with permanently attached flash or sound suppressors.

Click to expand...

http://atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-8/atf-p-5320-8-chapter-2.pdf

I think what your describing fall under NFA restrictions

ONLY if the gun in question started off as a rifle, then has the OAL brought down below 26".

To avoid NFA issues, the only requirements are that the gun starts off as a pistol as defined by federal law, then ends up with a fixed barrel over 16" and an OAL over 26" when converted into a rifle.

To avoid state law violations, if I remember right, it can't be a folding stock which folds to under 26". Federal law measures with the stock folded out, and as I recall, Michigan law measures with the stock folded in. Thus, entirely removing it would satisfy every requirement.

Pistol+click=rifle.

Now one thing you would also need to look out for would be vertical fore grips. While in pistol status, that would make for a AOW. Legal, but not likely worth the hassle for most.

Michigander said:

<<[(2) A PERSON WHO, BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2013, LAWFULLY OWNED A FIREARM GREATER THAN 26 INCHES IN LENGTH AND CARRIED THAT FIREARM AS A PISTOL, MAY CONTINUE TO LAWFULLY OWN, POSSESS, CARRY, OR TRANSPORT THAT FIREARM AS A PISTOL AFTER JANUARY 1, 2013 IF HE OR SHE IS IN POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(A) A COPY OF THE LICENSE OR RECORD ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2 OR 2A FOR THAT FIREARM, IF THE FIREARM WAS REGISTERED AS A PISTOL UNDER SECTIONS 2 OR 2A.
...

Click to expand...

I only came across this by chance... Are you telling me I have to have my original pistol purchase permit for my 28" mossberg 500 if I was to carry it as a pistol? (such as in the car or concealed)

Michigander said:

Now one thing you would also need to look out for would be vertical fore grips. While in pistol status, that would make for a AOW. Legal, but not likely worth the hassle for most.

Click to expand...

Don't know if I'm getting mixed up in a different conversation here. My 28" "pistol" mossberg 500 has a vertical foregrip. Came that way from the gun shop... is that a problem? They also sold it to me as a normal shotgun so I wouldn't be surprised if they did something else wrong. Had to resell it to myself as a pistol. I had it in the sheriffs office, no one said anything but it's not like they actually know all the laws.

Yes, that as what I'm saying.

And no, the fore grip is not a problem. The shotgun @ 28" with 18" + barrel is not a SBS or AOW by federal law. It's just a shotgun.

Well... that sucks. Just another way to try to trip me up. How are people supposed to know all of this? It's not like every person is taught every law and is required to learn every new law and changed law that comes out. Just like when you didn't have to bring a handgun into the sherrifs office for inspection anymore. I walk in with mine and they're like "uuuhhh, you're not supposed to bring that in here." How was I supposed to know? I had to just the month before and I wasn't informed anything was changing.

qqq1 said:

Well... that sucks. Just another way to try to trip me up. How are people supposed to know all of this? It's not like every person is taught every law and is required to learn every new law and changed law that comes out. Just like when you didn't have to bring a handgun into the sherrifs office for inspection anymore. I walk in with mine and they're like "uuuhhh, you're not supposed to bring that in here." How was I supposed to know? I had to just the month before and I wasn't informed anything was changing.

Click to expand...

The easiest way for those in power to keep said power is to make it so difficult for the honest man to avoid breaking "their laws" that he becomes a target for it always living in fear, looking over his shoulder. They however, never have to worry about breaking the law because, well they are above it. See L. Brooks Patterson, Bob Ficano, etc....

From June of 2003 web posting (Remember L. had a CPL at that time & still does and chances are he was CCing as a former prosecutor at the time of this stop, but we'll never know... If he would have gotten the 8 year suspension that the average joe would have gotten he would have just gotten his CPL back last summer.) "Do as I say little man, not as I do!"

Snip:
===========
Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson got off lightly when his car was pulled over last week. The police stopped Patterson after witnesses reported "seeing a gray-haired man in a Cadillac driving erratically on Dixie Highway." By his own admission, Patterson was hopped up on painkillers and "a couple of glasses of wine," yet he will not be charged with DUI. Why? Because rather than give him a Breathalyzer test or a sobriety check, the police officers recognized who he was and drove him home (both officers have since been suspended). No evidence, no DUI conviction - and therefore Patterson faces simple reckless driving charges. Of course, Patterson is now "reevaluating his lifestyle" and "says he will not make excuses for his actions and plans to accept his punishment." Now will that be the nothing-punishment he'll get for reckless driving, or the harsher punishment that he should have gotten for DUI but didn't because his buddies bailed him out? I wonder...
===========
If this were you or I we would have been raked over the coals.

The best we can do is to study, study & study some more. Then voice our displeasure with their crap as a group - as their is safety in numbers. Also we need to remember their disregard for our freedoms come elections.

It was the same system that charged me with the same "crime", yet the reaction from many of you, is somewhat different. Interesting.

stainless1911 said:

It was the same system that charged me with the same "crime", yet the reaction from many of you, is somewhat different. Interesting.

Click to expand...

The two incidents are good examples of a rigged system. Boss-man Patterson was clearly guilty of the charge and then some. He basically got a free PASS because of who he was. You, while guilty of very poor judgement & impulse control - got the book thrown at you, not because of who you are or what you did, but because of what you carry openly & where you choose to carry it. Never mind if it is legal - you dared to offend the tastes of your masters.

[video=youtube;TYpYs9GBXwY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYpYs9GBXwY[/video]

Is this actual law now or does more have to happen first? My stepdad has the same "pistol" shotgun as me and I'm sure he has no idea about this. Need to let him know.

Lots has to happen to make a law.

qqq1 said:

Is this actual law now or does more have to happen first? My stepdad has the same "pistol" shotgun as me and I'm sure he has no idea about this. Need to let him know.

Click to expand...

If you guys don't still have your green cards or RI060's, make sure you get them re-registered before the law becomes valid, if it does. Then, my plan and suggestion is to pack a copy of it in the stock.

Shotguns are an especially important thing to make sure you have grandfathered if that's important to you, because if this law passes, after it takes effect the only shotgun "pistols" will be AOW's like Serbu Super Shorties, which are nearly useless as compared to more conventional shotties.

Michigander said:

If you guys don't still have your green cards or RI060's, make sure you get them re-registered before the law becomes valid, if it does. Then, my plan and suggestion is to pack a copy of it in the stock.

.

Click to expand...

That isnt going to work. They had to be registered by January.

stainless1911 said:

That isnt going to work. They had to be registered by January.

Click to expand...

January 2013 hasn't happened yet.

I thought it was 2012.

So you say Maybe Stainless has a Stainless car?

Michigander said:

January 2013 hasn't happened yet.

Click to expand...

[video=youtube;yosuvf7Unmg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosuvf7Unmg&feature=related[/video]