• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Supressors OKed by AG

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
Fantastic! Not sure if i'll get one but having the right to own one restored is a good step. Now if that jerk off would just quit attacking the voter approved medical marijuana initiative I could fully support him.

edit- wonder what the odds of getting sbr & sbs approved is?
 
Last edited:

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
largedancingbanana.gif


attachment.gif

attachment.gif

attachment.gif

attachment.gif

attachment.gif

attachment.gif

attachment.gif

attachment.gif
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Bout damn time. I haven't read it in a while, but I seem to recall that Mike Cox's opinion pretty well should have already done this.

$200 just for the tax is pretty spendy.

If that's your initial reaction to the registered NFA world, you should probably leave it at that and be satisfied with non NFA items, because 200 dollars and a 3 plus month wait are considered the smaller hurdles. You don't need registered NFA weapons, no one does really, and thus the market isn't very large. It's an arbitrarily government modified hobby which is either worth it to you or it isn't.
 
Last edited:

ElectricianLU58

Regular Member
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
228
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
Bout damn time. I haven't read it in a while, but I seem to recall that Mike Cox's opinion pretty well should have already done this.



If that's your initial reaction to the registered NFA world, you should probably leave it at that and be satisfied with non NFA items, because 200 dollars and a 3 plus month wait are considered the smaller hurdles. You don't need registered NFA weapons, no one does really, and thus the market isn't very large. It's an arbitrarily government modified hobby which is either worth it to you or it isn't.

i just read a little about the NFA. to me, the most interesting part is that the transfer tax has been consistent since written. if a $200 tax seems spendy to me, it must have seemed insanely expensive in 1934 (comparable to $3,320.89 today).
 

Bronson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
2,126
Location
Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
I wonder if a silencer could be considered to be a "component" of a pistol or firearm?

123.1102 Regulation of pistols or other firearms. Sec. 2.
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.

Bronson
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
I would say they are. Since they are designed specifically for them, often specifically for a certain make of pistol.

Like holsters, a city might attempt to ban holsters claiming that they are not preempted from doing so, causing a backdoor ban on handguns, but I doubt it would fly.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
I wonder if a silencer could be considered to be a "component" of a pistol or firearm?

Bronson

c. Firearm. The term “firearm” means: (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 5845(e); (6) a machinegun; (7) a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and (8) a destructive device.

Definitions on page 3:

Making Your Own: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf

Buying One: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-4.pdf
 

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
We'd all do well to remember AGOs aren't legally binding.

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 form4'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).
 
Last edited:
Top