Any Chance Sound Suppressors Will Go Legal in MI Anytime Soon?

When I left MI for the Marine Corps in 2000 I remember that Class 3 Weapons were a no-go in this state regardless of how much money you had. A few years after I came back I learned that this had changed. Don't really know why...or how for that matter.

In any case...I guess suppressors (which are a lot more useful) did not make it over the wire in that jailbreak and are still on the Police-And-Bad-Guy-Only list. Any chance that will change anytime soon? I'd like to build an AR-15 with a suppressor.

If no, why not?

The Expert said:

When I left MI for the Marine Corps in 2000 I remember that Class 3 Weapons were a no-go in this state regardless of how much money you had. A few years after I came back I learned that this had changed. Don't really know why...or how for that matter.

In any case...I guess suppressors (which are a lot more useful) did not make it over the wire in that jailbreak and are still on the Police-And-Bad-Guy-Only list. Any chance that will change anytime soon? I'd like to build an AR-15 with a suppressor.

If no, why not?

Click to expand...

Write your elected officials and tell them that you want Michigan to join the list of the majority of states that have laws mirroring federal law, or are silent when it comes to machine guns/suppressors/AOW's and the like.

agreed, but don't hold your breath,,,,i had a nice gemtech blackside suppressor that i had to get rid of when i moved back to MI.

Being discussed here as well:

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=110991

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=109303

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox issued opinion 7183 that made it de-facto legal to own a "machine gun" in Michigan but a similar ruling was not made on suppression devices.

Sign this petition to get the Michigan AG to issue an official opinion on suppression devices.

http://www.change.org/petitions/view..._on_mcl_750224

well an opinion wouldn't matter, theres a difference that allows machine guns to be bought and sold that the supressors don't share. an actual law change would be needed. people have been buying and selling machine guns well before the cox opinion came out.

personally i would like to see MI fall in line with federal law, so that any C3 item could be transferred here in MI. but unfortunately right now only machine guns and 1 other class 3 item can be legally transferred in MI.

but i don't think it will happen anytime soon, but i would love to see it,,,,

NHCGRPR45 said:

agreed, but don't hold your breath,,,,i had a nice gemtech blackside suppressor that i had to get rid of when i moved back to MI.

Click to expand...

You could have contacted the ATF, then informed them that you were going to store it in a locked container in the state which you were leaving. This can be done with NFA items when moving to occupied america, even when changing state residency and leaving the item(s) at a friends property, or for that matter storage like a safety deposit box or a simpler paid storage facility. The only thing, as I recall, is that the ATF has to be informed, and only the registered owner may have a key to access the item(s).

The Expert said:

When I left MI for the Marine Corps in 2000 I remember that Class 3 Weapons were a no-go in this state regardless of how much money you had. A few years after I came back I learned that this had changed. Don't really know why...or how for that matter.

In any case...I guess suppressors (which are a lot more useful) did not make it over the wire in that jailbreak and are still on the Police-And-Bad-Guy-Only list. Any chance that will change anytime soon? I'd like to build an AR-15 with a suppressor.

If no, why not?

Click to expand...

Not to downplay the actions of the treasonous AG who screwed over would be NFA owners, but C&R's, DD's, and AOW's have always been legal here. With full auto's now legal, we have it nearly as good as many states, aside from having to have buttstockless short shotguns, and AOW or handgun type rifles instead of SBR's. Having to seek out C&R cans is perhaps the worst part about being a NFA enthusiast here.

I personally don't own any, don't have the funds. But if I did, and I actually planned to stay here, which I don't, I'd probably set a goal of getting an integrally suppressed Sten or Sterling, or something similar. And on that note, I wonder how long before those obnoxiously huge and inefficient Sionics cans become C&R...

Michigander said:

Not to downplay the actions of the treasonous AG who screwed over would be NFA owners, but C&R's, DD's, and AOW's have always been legal here. With full auto's now legal, we have it nearly as good as many states, aside from having to have buttstockless short shotguns, and AOW or handgun type rifles instead of SBR's. Having to seek out C&R cans is perhaps the worst part about being a NFA enthusiast here.

I personally don't own any, don't have the funds. But if I did, and I actually planned to stay here, which I don't, I'd probably set a goal of getting an integrally suppressed Sten or Sterling, or something similar. And on that note, I wonder how long before those obnoxiously huge and inefficient Sionics cans become C&R...

Click to expand...

Funny thing about suppressors is that in Europe they are quite available, inexpensive, and no one sees them as particularly "dangerous": something that should be tightly controlled. My thought is that the reason that Michigan (and other states) look at these as especially pernicious is that they are considered as only useful for poaching. Since Michigan relies on "deer hunting" as a major source of revenue for the state, they have been banned due to the potential use in poaching. Although the original legal prohibition was also an outcome of attempting to stop organized crime at the national level, my guess is that when people begin to look at firearms more from a self-defensive standpoint rather than a tool for hunting, change will take place. Until that time, though, I think we may be out of luck.

Michigander said:

You could have contacted the ATF, then informed them that you were going to store it in a locked container in the state which you were leaving. This can be done with NFA items when moving to occupied america, even when changing state residency and leaving the item(s) at a friends property, or for that matter storage like a safety deposit box or a simpler paid storage facility. The only thing, as I recall, is that the ATF has to be informed, and only the registered owner may have a key to access the item(s).

Click to expand...

yes they explained that to me but i just didn't want the cost or headache of storing it outside the state.

DrTodd said:

Funny thing about suppressors is that in Europe they are quite available, inexpensive, and no one sees them as particularly "dangerous": something that should be tightly controlled. My thought is that the reason that Michigan (and other states) look at these as especially pernicious is that they are considered as only useful for poaching. Since Michigan relies on "deer hunting" as a major source of revenue for the state, they have been banned due to the potential use in poaching. Although the original legal prohibition was also an outcome of attempting to stop organized crime at the national level, my guess is that when people begin to look at firearms more from a self-defensive standpoint rather than a tool for hunting, change will take place. Until that time, though, I think we may be out of luck.

Click to expand...

agreed a suppressor is just a "can" like a pop can only heavier. its about as dangerous also. by itself it can do no harm, well if it rolled off a table it could ding your toe, but since they are for the most part pretty light it wouldn't hurt to bad.

DrTodd said:

Funny thing about suppressors is that in Europe they are quite available, inexpensive, and no one sees them as particularly "dangerous": something that should be tightly controlled. My thought is that the reason that Michigan (and other states) look at these as especially pernicious is that they are considered as only useful for poaching. Since Michigan relies on "deer hunting" as a major source of revenue for the state, they have been banned due to the potential use in poaching. Although the original legal prohibition was also an outcome of attempting to stop organized crime at the national level, my guess is that when people begin to look at firearms more from a self-defensive standpoint rather than a tool for hunting, change will take place. Until that time, though, I think we may be out of luck.

Click to expand...

I agree, my uncle lives in Europe, and he said in many areas it is considered rude to shoot an unsuppressed firearm. Perhaps we can offer that as a "compromise" to those anti's that want to shut down ranges because of the noise. "Let us have suppressors, which will allow us to shoot, which is what we want, and keep the noise down, which is what you want....problems solved"

DrTodd said:

Funny thing about suppressors is that in Europe they are quite available, inexpensive, and no one sees them as particularly "dangerous": something that should be tightly controlled. My thought is that the reason that Michigan (and other states) look at these as especially pernicious is that they are considered as only useful for poaching. Since Michigan relies on "deer hunting" as a major source of revenue for the state, they have been banned due to the potential use in poaching. Although the original legal prohibition was also an outcome of attempting to stop organized crime at the national level, my guess is that when people begin to look at firearms more from a self-defensive standpoint rather than a tool for hunting, change will take place. Until that time, though, I think we may be out of luck.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that, unless you have researched the history of these laws. In my experience looking up legislative history at legal archives, Michigan tends to have its head firmly wedged up its ass when it comes to gun laws, having little more reason than phobia, power hunger and racism for nearly all its gun laws.

Anyhow, I could be wrong, but my understanding was that they were perfectly legal until Frank Kelly signed our rights away in 1986, in effect banning future registration of full autos, SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors. To be fair, I wasn't alive then and very few people registered NFA guns as is, but this is my understanding. Also note that Bailenforcer has mentioned owning a SBR which he registered before 1986. Again, could be wrong, and I'm counting on you guys to tell me if I am.

I don't want to be required nor prohibited from having a suppressed weapon. I like the freedom to have suppressors, but I like the BANG as well.

Michigander said:

I don't know about that, unless you have researched the history of these laws. In my experience looking up legislative history at legal archives, Michigan tends to have its head firmly wedged up its ass when it comes to gun laws, having little more reason than phobia, power hunger and racism for nearly all its gun laws.

Anyhow, I could be wrong, but my understanding was that they were perfectly legal until Frank Kelly signed our rights away in 1986, in effect banning future registration of full autos, SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors. To be fair, I wasn't alive then and very few people registered NFA guns as is, but this is my understanding. Also note that Bailenforcer has mentioned owning a SBR which he registered before 1986. Again, could be wrong, and I'm counting on you guys to tell me if I am.

Click to expand...

the date of registration is irrelevant SBR, SBS, and suppressors are banned ,illegal, and contraband in MI. per state police. in MI anyone in possesion of such and item can be charged with a crime.

Just to let you guys know. Many people and I'm part of that group whom have lobbied with Mike Cox for him to make an AG opinion on the subject before he leaves office. It is very plausible that it might take place soon. There is a favorable outlook but you never know.

Hi, nice to know you're still around.

I would rather have an AG about PFZs and OC. Especially regarding OC in a school.

mikestilly said:

Just to let you guys know. Many people and I'm part of that group whom have lobbied with Mike Cox for him to make an AG opinion on the subject before he leaves office. It is very plausible that it might take place soon. There is a favorable outlook but you never know.

Click to expand...

that would be great,

NHCGRPR45 said:

that would be great,

Click to expand...

They may be legal already, if one applies the logic that machine guns are legal if licensed by the Feds:... or am I reading this incorrectly:


MCL 750.224 Weapons; manufacture, sale, or possession as felony; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "muffler" or "silencer" defined.
Sec. 224.

(1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess any of the following:

(a) A machine gun or firearm that shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than 1 shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

(b) A muffler or silencer.

(c) A bomb or bombshell.

(d) A blackjack, slungshot, billy, metallic knuckles, sand club, sand bag, or bludgeon.

(e) A device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance designed to render a person temporarily or permanently disabled by the ejection, release, or emission of a gas or other substance.

(2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A self-defense spray or foam device as defined in section 224d.

(b) A person manufacturing firearms, explosives, or munitions of war by virtue of a contract with a department of the government of the United States.

(c) A person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or the secretary's delegate to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun, or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in subsection (1).

(4) As used in this chapter, "muffler" or "silencer" means 1 or more of the following:

(a) A device for muffling, silencing, or deadening the report of a firearm.

(b) A combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer.

(c) A part, designed or redesigned, and intended only for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer.

NHCGRPR45 said:

the date of registration is irrelevant SBR, SBS, and suppressors are banned ,illegal, and contraband in MI. per state police. in MI anyone in possesion of such and item can be charged with a crime.

Click to expand...

It appears you are missing the point. Machine guns, which seem some what banned by state law, were for sure, and I mean absolutely for sure legal to register and own before Frank Kelly made his tyrannical opinion. I have met more than one person who had a registered machine gun before then, and was thus able to keep it.

Again, suppressors/sbr's/sbs's were banned in a similar way with a nearly identical law, and my understanding is that they were lawfully registered by some before 86, because it was considered a licensing process to NFA register them, right up until Kelly said it wasn't. BailEnforcer stating he has a pre 86 SBR certainly would suggest I am right.

Michigander said:

It appears you are missing the point. Machine guns, which seem some what banned by state law, were for sure, and I mean absolutely for sure legal to register and own before Frank Kelly made his tyrannical opinion. I have met more than one person who had a registered machine gun before then, and was thus able to keep it.

Again, suppressors/sbr's/sbs's were banned in a similar way with a nearly identical law, and my understanding is that they were lawfully registered by some before 86, because it was considered a licensing process to NFA register them, right up until Kelly said it wasn't. BailEnforcer stating he has a pre 86 SBR certainly would suggest I am right.

Click to expand...

But didn't the ag opine that the Feds license machine guns? I don't have the opinion here in front of but using the same logic,anything else licensed by the feds would also be legal.