Supressors OKed by AG

PDinDetroit · Sep 3, 2011

dougwg said:
This issue is much more complex.

We could have them before according to the law but because there was no opinion on the "Tax Stamp" being a "License" the BATFE wouldn't approve form1's or form2's and without one of them it was illegal.

All this long drawn out opinion really says is that the tax stamp is the license (just like the tax stamp for machine guns).

The AG didn't make them legal. They were always legal, with a license. All he did was define what a license is.

There will be no legal issues with suppressors just like there are none with machine guns, as long as you have the tax stamp(license).

Good information and analysis!

Bronson · Sep 3, 2011

PDinDetroit said:
Definitions on page 3:

That is the Feds. definition but I believe for a MI preemption issue the MI definitions would be the pertinent ones.

123.1102

A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.

123.1101 Definitions.

Sec. 1.
As used in this act:

(a) “Local unit of government” means a city, village, township, or county.

(b) “Pistol” means that term as defined in section 222 of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being section 750.222 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

750.222

(d) “Firearm” means a weapon from which a dangerous projectile may be propelled by an explosive, or by gas or air. Firearm does not include a smooth bore rifle or handgun designed and manufactured exclusively for propelling by a spring, or by gas or air, BB's not exceeding .177 caliber.
(e) “Pistol” means a loaded or unloaded firearm that is 30 inches or less in length, or a loaded or unloaded firearm that by its construction and appearance conceals itself as a firearm.

So it looks, to me, that unless we can swing the "component of pistols or other firearms" angle suppressors may not be covered under MI preemption.

I don't personally feel this way as I think it's pretty self-evident that the State occupies the field when it comes to regulating firearm/component possession. But I also thought it was pretty self-evident that an authority was covered under preemption and apparently at least one judge disagrees with me.

Bronson

stainless1911 · Sep 3, 2011

Glad you brought this up.

smellslikemichigan · Sep 3, 2011

i voted 5 stars for this thread. nice find.

Michigander · Sep 4, 2011

ElectricianLU58 said:
if a $200 tax seems spendy to me, it must have seemed insanely expensive in 1934 (comparable to $3,320.89 today).

Now imagine that during the great depression. We're basically in a depression now, but 200 bucks is still tiny compared to 3 grand in an even worse economy.

Just another reason to hate FDR and how he screwed us.

Shadow Bear · Sep 4, 2011

Michigander said:
Now imagine that during the great depression. We're basically in a depression now, but 200 bucks is still tiny compared to 3 grand in an even worse economy.

Just another reason to hate FDR and how he screwed us.

Not 'screwed', still 'screwing'

Perry for President?

Michigander · Sep 4, 2011

Shadow Bear said:
Not 'screwed', still 'screwing'

Perry for President?

Depending on how you want to look at it, we've basically been flip flopping between 2 sides of the same corrupt coin since either Reagan or Bush 1. Obama is no exception, and I've seen nothing from Perry to believe he's any different.

Not to in any way promote Alex Jones, because he is in fact a lunatic, but he did uncover that Perry years ago that Perry went to a Bilderberg meeting, and has since then been saying he'd run for president. Alex Jones and his insanity aside, the very fact he attended those meetings and has extensive press support should in my opinion be enough to give him no credibility with someone who is politically awake. I do believe, in short, that Perry would be another extension of the same liberty raping.

I'm not a huge fan of Ron Paul, since my political beliefs are libertarian with a left lean, but he is by far the best person running. He may have almost no chance, but he is at this point the only person I think any of us should be considering supporting for president. He's the only one who would shake things up enough to put this country back on the right track.

OC4me · Sep 4, 2011

Hi Bronson,

Did you just say what I think you said? Suppressors may not be covered by preemption?

By the same legalese cited above, it seems straightforward (at least to me) that a suppressor would be a (noise-supression) component of a firearm.

Are you thinking that firearm 'accessories' are not 'components' for purposes of the preemption statute? If that turns out to be the case, then would a permanently fixed suppressor then qualify as a component (or still be an accessory)?

Just curious.

Edited to add:

I just noticed PDinDetroit's cite below:

c. Firearm. The term “firearm” means: . . . (7) a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition.

* * * *

So in light of the above, is everyone in agreement about the legality now (preemption included) of suppressors in Michigan?

FerretMI · Sep 4, 2011

I wouldn't OC with a silencer for a few reasons. One, it's a really long draw compared to without it. Two, if you ever are forced to use your firearm, you probably want people in the area to hear it for the witness factor. Three, when people see guns with long silencers, they may be more prone to call the police. To me it seems that's hitman territory in a lot of people's minds, thanks to Hollywood.

Just my two cents.

stainless1911 · Sep 5, 2011

I don't care if people call the police on me. Also, the noise isnt suppressed that much, people will know. If you're in a really crowded area however, like AB&E for example, a silenced weapon may prevent a stampede, thus saving lives.

Bronson · Sep 5, 2011

OC4me said:
Did you just say what I think you said? Suppressors may not be covered by preemption?

I believe they should be covered under preemption, but since they are not specifically mentioned in the MI preemption law I can easily see a LUoG attempting to regulate them beyond what the state does.

Bronson

OC4me · Sep 6, 2011

Bronson said:
I believe they should be covered under preemption, but since they are not specifically mentioned in the MI preemption law I can easily see a LUoG attempting to regulate them beyond what the state does.

Bronson

Well there may just have to be a test case. I'm sure we will all hear about the first instance of a local regulation to pop-up and some local Michigan gun-rights group, if not this one, will take up the fight.

RetiredOC · Sep 6, 2011

detroit_fan said:
Fantastic! Not sure if i'll get one but having the right to own one restored is a good step.

Wo wo wo. Hold the phone.

Being forced to pay 200 bucks and wait months for permission to own one is a clear indication that you do NOT have a RIGHT to own one of these bad boys.

T1mH · Sep 6, 2011

Lots of other reasons to have a suppresor beyound noise. Reduced recoil, reduced muzzle flash, less concussion. All of which make follow up shots easier.

stainless1911 · Sep 6, 2011

Schlitz said:
Wo wo wo. Hold the phone.

Being forced to pay 200 bucks and wait months for permission to own one is a clear indication that you do NOT have a RIGHT to own one of these bad boys.

The 200$ is a federal thing. In case nobody noticed, the "right" to keep and bear arms is an illusion, don't kid yourselves.

detroit_fan · Sep 6, 2011

Schlitz said:
Wo wo wo. Hold the phone.

Being forced to pay 200 bucks and wait months for permission to own one is a clear indication that you do NOT have a RIGHT to own one of these bad boys.

Fair enough, but the money and the wait is federal not state. I was more referring to the right being restored in our state. Of course it would be best with no paperwork, no fee and no records of who has them, but I guess baby steps is better than no steps or going backwards.

cmdr_iceman71 · Sep 6, 2011

Will this allow us to place silencers on long guns as well?

dougwg · Sep 6, 2011

sasha601 · Sep 6, 2011

Does anybody have a list of pistols designed to accept silencers? Also, who makes silencers for these pistols?

Bronson · Sep 7, 2011

dougwg said:
Yes

Doug, are you going to start making them?

Bronson

Supressors OKed by AG

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member