S.B. 760,761,762 pistol definition

[Tallbear]

SB 0760 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0760)
Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify. Amends secs. 222 & 223 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.222 & 750.223). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0761'11, SB 0762'11
Last Action: 11/3/2011 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
SB 0761 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0761)
Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify. Amends sec. 1 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0760'11, SB 0762'11
Last Action: 11/3/2011 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
SB 0762 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0762)
Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify. Amends sec. 2951 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.2951). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0760'11, SB 0761'11
Last Action: 11/3/2011 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

[bsf]

Without tie bar to additional legislation that legalizes carrying of loaded shotguns and rifles in vehicles, specifically passenger compartments, under authority of CPL, I disapprove of SB 762.

[TheQ]

Without tie bar to additional legislation that legalizes carrying of loaded shotguns and rifles in vehicles, specifically passenger compartments, under authority of CPL, I disapprove of SB 762.


I share these concerns.

[Quaamik]

I disaprove of SB 762 without:

1) modification or tie bar to a bill allowing loaded rifles and shotguns to be carried in the passanger compartment of a vehicle under the authority of a CPL.
and
2) modification or a tie bar to a bill bringing the method of measuring the overall length of a firearm into line with federal regulations (that is- with the stock extended).
and
3) modification or tie bar to a bill allowing the legal ownership of SBRs and SBSs (provided federal law is complied with) and defining those as either pistols or as rifles / shotguns under Michigan law as with respect to how they can be legaly carried & transported.

Sorry but I can't see any pro gun reason for the change they are proposing. This is a bill for more gun control.

[mosnar87]

What they said. I want to be able to keep a loaded shotgun in my Jeep. Plus gun racks are cool. :)

[45/70fan]

While the concept of having a gun rack in the back window and showing off the guns sounds neat, the reality of it is: Hey look, steal these, it's just window advertising for theft.

[Quaamik]

One additional problem with the change as proposed:

What happens to the upteen CPL holders who currently own, and may carry, a MI Pistol? I don't see anything that says they will be notified of the change. So assuming the new law goes into affect one day they carry thier MI Pistol under thier CPL legaly and the next they are committing a felony?

Maybe this will only apply to a handful of CPL holders. Ones who carry MI Pistols (perhaps in their car only) and don't frequent the various gun rights discussion boards onlne to hear about it. Then again, perhaps there will be quite a few affected.

I'd hate to see us supporting something that will make felons out of legal gun owners / CPL holders without at least insisting the state notify them of the change in the law prior to it going into effect.

[RDak]

I just ordered a 20 gauge Mossberg Cruiser with a 28" OAL.

I assume I will fall under any grandfathered exceptions if the amendment is passed?

Oh, it will arrive at the FFL on Monday, so I'll be registering it as a pistol next week sometime.

[Bronson]

I assume I will fall under any grandfathered exceptions if the amendment is passed?

Reading the three senate bills in the original post I didn't see any grandfathering clause...maybe I missed it.

Bronson

[The General]

I'd hate to see us supporting something that will make felons out of legal gun owners / CPL holders without at least insisting the state notify them of the change in the law prior to it going into effect

How about we create laws that treat the car as a home extension and thus allows you to have loaded weapons in there.

problem solved.

[RDak]

Reading the three senate bills in the original post I didn't see any grandfathering clause...maybe I missed it.

Bronson

I know but I thought I had read previously that a seperate amendment would be introduced grandfathering older registered shotguns and rifles.

[_DK_]

How about we create laws that treat the car as a home extension and thus allows you to have loaded weapons in there.

problem solved.

More Laws = problem solved?

More Laws = more problems...

IMO, You are either responsible enough to carry or have immediate access to ANY loaded firearm that you own wherever you may be; or you are not.

[trapdoorman]

What Senate bill are you guys all talking about. I clicked the link on the first post for bills 760, 761, and 762 and don't recall reading anything that would affect how one carries a pistol under the authority of a CPL. Perhaps I missed something.

The only changes I recall would reduce the current overall length for a firearm to be considered a handgun from 30" to 26". We will now be able to have a firearm that is 4" shorter without having to register it as a handgun.

How would this bill create overnight felons out of CPL holders and what guns would need to be "grandfathered"?

If there were any amendments or additional bills not in the original link please let me know. I like to keep informed.

[SADAacp]

What Senate bill are you guys all talking about. I clicked the link on the first post for bills 760, 761, and 762 and don't recall reading anything that would affect how one carries a pistol under the authority of a CPL. Perhaps I missed something.

Only "Michigan Pistols" (Rifle or Shotty) 26" to 30" OAL (750.222).

The only changes I recall would reduce the current overall length for a firearm to be considered a handgun from 30" to 26". We will now be able to have a firearm that is 4" shorter without having to register it as a handgun.

How would this bill create overnight felons out of CPL holders and what guns would need to be "grandfathered"?

No felony, but a misdemeanor for a loaded long gun (Michigan Pistol) in your vehicle (750.227d) if the SB's become law, even with CPL. IMO, "Michigan Pistols" registered prior to the SB's being signed into law will not grandfather in. Yet, how do you unregister a pistol or Michigan Pistol?

If there were any amendments or additional bills not in the original link please let me know. I like to keep informed.

...

[trapdoorman]

O.K. I see what you guys are getting at. This would be a gray area that might affect the one guy out of 500,000 that had a 27" gun registered as a pistol and wanted to carry it. There is a simple solution to the issue.
Get out the hacksaw and shorten the barrel or
BUY A GLOCK!

[Quaamik]

O.K. I see what you guys are getting at. This would be a gray area that might affect the one guy out of 500,000 that had a 27" gun registered as a pistol and wanted to carry it. There is a simple solution to the issue.
Get out the hacksaw and shorten the barrel or
BUY A GLOCK!

Sorry to be the wet blanket.......

Federal law: A firearm with a shoulder stock that is under 26 inches is either a short barreled rifle (SBR) or a short barreled shotgun (SBS). This required BATFE approval and registration plus a $200 tax stamp. They are also illegal in Michigan. Length is measured with the stock extended.

Michigan law (current): A firearm (stocked otherwise) is considered a pistol by law (and must be registered) if it is longer than 26 inches and less than 30 inches. If it is shorter than 26 inches, and is not considered a SBR / SBS by Michigan law and attorney general opinion then it is considered a pistol. Michigan Attorney general opinion is that the length is measured with the stock folded (if possible). Thsi is where the term "Michigan Pistol" comes from.

***Note: Because of the difference in the way they are measured, you can find firearms in other states that are legaly normal rifles or shotguns according to federal law that are illegal SBRs / SBSs under Michigan law / AG opinion. They cannot be possesed in Michigan.

Michigan law (proposed): A firearm that is less than 26 inches (and is not considered an SBR or SBS) is a pistol and must be registered. No stocked firearm can meet Michigans definition of a "pistol" without violating Michigan law prohibiting SBRs / SBSs.

Carrying a concealed weapon that is NOT allowed by your CPL is not, to my understanding, a misdemeanor. I may be wrong but I doubt it (and I suggest that anyone claiming that carrying a rifle or shotgun concealed is a misdemeanor offense check the laws first).

There are CPL holders who carry, either in their car or under longer coats, "Michigan Pistols". Not all of them are on this website. Not all of them even "know" about this website. Nothing in the proposed law requires them to be informed of the change, nor does it allow for grandfathering current "Michigan Pistols". So if it goes into effect, these CPL holders will become criminals by doing what the day before was legal.

Yes, the proposed law would allow the purchase of a rifle or shotgun 4 inches shorter without registering it. Personally, I don't think that is a fair trade for the people who will get in trouble carrying thier (formerly legal to carry) pistol registered long guns. I also don't think it's a fair trade for those who want to carry "Michigan Pistols" as the current law allows to be forced to give up that right (privlige?) so that others can gain the right (privlige?) of buying a 4 inch shorter long gun without registering it.

[Flash-hider]

Are any of the members here in the Senate districts of the bill's sponsor and cosponsors and if so, has anyone initiated a conversation with them as to the thought process behind these three pieces of legislation?

I see it this way. Michigan as a history of allowing its citizens to own stocked firearms 26"-30" in length provided they are registered as pistols. Prior to the revisions for concealed carry it was a obstacle to carrying this in a vehicle or on your person. Maybe that's why the laws on the books. Or has I have experienced, passing up a purchase(s) because I didn't want to register it as a pistol. Now, with the liberalization of the cpl statutes, by default this turned out to be a gift horse unique to Michigan.

I noticed last month the bills went to full committee. It would be worth the research to see what was discussed and presented to that committee to get a sense of what path this would take.

I don't believe grandfathering should be added. Nor any other legislation that could produce gray areas. What I do think is the Michigan pistol provision should remain as it is moving forward. I do support not having to register a 26"-30" firearm as a pistol. Perhaps the language in the legislation could simply allow for registering it as a Michigan pistol or declaring it as a long gun.

[UpNorthWOLF]

So my truck gun (registered as a pistol) will suddenly become illegal? WTF? Will that make possession of the upper a problem?

[donald150]

So my truck gun (registered as a pistol) will suddenly become illegal? WTF? Will that make possession of the upper a problem?
Is yours over 26"? If so it would not be a "rifle" under Fed law according to a ATF letter I was just reading. It would be a "firearm".

Link to find ATF letter:
http://www.franklinarmory.com/PRODUCTS_XO-26B.html

Michigan sbr definition is as follows:

(k) “Short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having 1 or more barrels less than 16 inches in length or a weapon made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if the weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

If it is not a "rifle" and was not a "rifle" it can't meet the definition of a sbr by Michigan law.

I hope I am right here because I will be in the same boat as you.

I don't know about carrying it loaded in your car though because it is not a rifle or a pistol :shrugs:

If this happens, I may switch barrels to get mine under 26" to qualify as a Fed pistol.

[UpNorthWOLF]

Um, nope...27.25"
Damn

[The General]

I also don't think it's a fair trade for those who want to carry "Michigan Pistols" as the current law allows to be forced to give up that right (privlige?) so that others can gain the right (privlige?) of buying a 4 inch shorter long gun without registering it.

Plain and simple, I don't want to register a shoulder fired weapon. If you want to carry a loaded rifle in the car, then work on getting the law prohibiting you from doing so removed.

[UpNorthWOLF]

Plain and simple, I don't want to register a shoulder fired weapon. If you want to carry a loaded rifle in the car, then work on getting the law prohibiting you from doing so removed.

You forgot to add -- Neener, neener, boo, boo

[Quaamik]

Plain and simple, I don't want to register a shoulder fired weapon. If you want to carry a loaded rifle in the car, then work on getting the law prohibiting you from doing so removed.

Good for you.

I assume that that you have no problem with the people who did, and who legally do carry them, getting in trouble afterwards because of a law a pro gun groups pushed to pass?

Personally, I don't want to register any firearm. I think it is a goverment control issue that does nothing to reduce crime and intrudes on the RKBA. Sadly the SCOTUS does not agree. But since we have registered them in the past, and in Michigan that registration has resulted in a particular action being legal for over 10 years, it behooves us to make sure we don't throw fellow CPL holders under the bus with an attempted change in the law.

Grandfathering them has a bunch of problems. Probably too many to be workable. Letting an individual decide whether a given firearm is to be registered or not is probably harder to implement. Notifying existing CPL holders of a change in the law that may affect them is simple, doable and the minimum that any pro gun group should demand.

You obviously feel the trade off - not having to register them but no longer being allowed to carry them - is acceptable. I think we (gun owners) are getting the raw end of the deal here and we are not even asking for vaseline. It is telling that few who want the length changed are willing to even ask for anny additional concesions from the goverment to "sweeten the pot".

[RDak]

Here it is December 12th and nothing further has happened.

Am I to assume this won't pass by January 1st?

[bradymsu]

Here it is December 12th and nothing further has happened.

Am I to assume this won't pass by January 1st?

Legislative sessions operate on 2-year cycles. They end on even years and begin on odd years. So, these bills remain in play until the House and Senate adjourn sine die in December 2012, not this month.

[Pyzik]

Here it is December 12th and nothing further has happened.

Am I to assume this won't pass by January 1st?
Passed and read at House.

[salmo1219]

So, I have a Tapco T6 stock for a 10/22 that is cut back so the stock barrel (10.5 inches) on my Ruger Charger hangs out half an inch. Its currently mounted in the factory original pistol stock. It's registered as a pistol. Is it legal in the T6 stock?

[forrest0872]

So, I have a Tapco T6 stock for a 10/22 that is cut back so the stock barrel (10.5 inches) on my Ruger Charger hangs out half an inch. Its currently mounted in the factory original pistol stock. It's registered as a pistol. Is it legal in the T6 stock?


NO you would have created an unregistered SBR

>16" w/ a stock is an SBR.

[Tallbear]

Passed and read at House.


SB 0760 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0760)
Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify. Amends secs. 222 & 223 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.222 & 750.223). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0761'11, SB 0762'11
Last Action: 12/13/2011 referred to Committee on Judiciary
SB 0761 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0761)
Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify. Amends sec. 1 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0760'11, SB 0762'11
Last Action: 12/13/2011 referred to Committee on Judiciary
SB 0762 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0762)
Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify. Amends sec. 2951 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.2951). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0760'11, SB 0761'11
Last Action: 12/13/2011 referred to Committee on Judiciary

[Tallbear]

SB 0761 of 2011 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0761)
Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify. Amends sec. 1 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0760'11, SB 0762'11
Last Action: 12/13/2011 referred to Committee on Judiciary

Amended to grandfather "Michigan pistol" .

[RDak]

Yup, I see it was passed on 12-13-2011. Thanks for the info guys. (I guess I should have waited one day before making my post!!)

ETA: Hopefully the grandfathering amendment goes through.

[UpNorthWOLF]

Okay, but I'd like a lawyer to chime in please, what if SB 0761 passes and my AR Michigan Pistol at 27.25" is grandfathered...can I NOW put a front grip on it since it is long enough to play the BATFe Franklin Armory game???

Anyone with the correct sheep skin?

[Pistol Teacher]

..

[SADAacp]

This Bill is a huge mistake. It will reduce by limiting the types of weapons a person can carry.

This is a good example of the blithering idiots at MUCC vs the 2nd Admendment. The second Admendment is not about Duck hunting it is the unalienable rights of a individual to protect himself from a Foe, be it a man or tyranical govenment. Because the self-interest in some hunting groups in Michigan over the rights of us that support the true meaning of Self-Defense and the 2nd Admendment we have to tolerate bullcrap legislation on our freedoms. You will note for the record this does not do away with pistol registration or allowing the carrying of long guns with a CPL.

This is a snow job by hunting groups and FFLs don't be fooled by the spin doctors.

You get a reward to keep your grandfathered rights but your kids cannot enjoy these rights later on. This is Gun Control gone wrong.

Not sure about FFL's, but completely agree with the rest.

Why would FFL's favor the amendment? It seems the enacting of the SB's would be cutting their throat, so to speak.

[Pistol Teacher]

..

[donald150]

Amended to grandfather "Michigan pistol" .
So if I am reading this right, it has not yet been signed into law so it is not too late to get a MI pistol and have it grandfathered.

What if you sell your grandfathered MI pistol after the law changes, does it then just become a rifle or shotgun?

[Tallbear]

This Bill is a huge mistake. It will reduce by limiting the types of weapons a person can carry.

This is a good example of the blithering idiots at MUCC vs the 2nd Admendment.

Obviously someone that doesn't know what they are talking about.

MUCC didn't author this bill AND did NOT testify in support of the bills.

It was a bill "asked for" by gun owners in Michigan. If you don't like it, show up at the next committee that takes it up and show your opposition to it. Showing your dislike for it here, gets you nothing. Be pro-active in your beliefs.

[Imshootin]

So if I am reading this right, it has not yet been signed into law so it is not too late to get a MI pistol and have it grandfathered.

Per amendment December 13, 2011:
<<(2) A PERSON WHO, BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2012, LAWFULLY OWNED, POSSESSED, CARRIED, OR TRANSPORTED A FIREARM 30 INCHES OR LESS IN LENGTH AS A PISTOL PURSUANT TO A LICENSE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2 OR 5B OR PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 2 OR 5B MAY CONTINUE TO LAWFULLY OWN, POSSESS, CARRY, OR TRANSPORT THAT FIREARM AS A PISTOL AFTER JANUARY 1, 2012 PURSUANT TO THAT LICENSE OR ANY RENEWAL OF THAT LICENSE OR PURSUANT TO THAT EXEMPTION.>>



What if you sell your grandfathered MI pistol after the law changes, does it then just become a rifle or shotgun?

That's what I'm curious about myself. Would one need a CPL/purchase permit to buy it from you after the first of the year? What if a conventional stock was put back on and it. Is it still a 'Michigan Pistol' and a gun I could carry/have loaded in my vehicle or is it no longer a "Michigan pistol"?
If anyone knows the answers to these questions, please feel free to chime in.


...

[donald150]

...
I think I will be registering a new AR pistol before Jan 1st

[Flash-hider]

Dec. 15 is the last day the House is in session for this year. They then get back to business the week of Jan. 16. That provides a three week opprotunity for anyone who has concerns regarding these Bill's to contact your Rep. while they are back in their districts.

[mpearce]

Without tie bar to additional legislation that legalizes carrying of loaded shotguns and rifles in vehicles, specifically passenger compartments, under authority of CPL, I disapprove of SB 762.

Perhaps you and I are reading different bills, but SB 762 deals with approved signaling devices and not rifles or shotguns.

[mpearce]

I disaprove of SB 762 without:

1) modification or tie bar to a bill allowing loaded rifles and shotguns to be carried in the passanger compartment of a vehicle under the authority of a CPL.
and
2) modification or a tie bar to a bill bringing the method of measuring the overall length of a firearm into line with federal regulations (that is- with the stock extended).
and
3) modification or tie bar to a bill allowing the legal ownership of SBRs and SBSs (provided federal law is complied with) and defining those as either pistols or as rifles / shotguns under Michigan law as with respect to how they can be legaly carried & transported.

Sorry but I can't see any pro gun reason for the change they are proposing. This is a bill for more gun control.

This bill specifically deals with approved signaling devices (flare guns) for boating or aircraft emergencies. This bill will amend MCL 600.2951.

I don't know how you think all of these modifications would be relevant under this Senate Bill.

[Pistol Teacher]

..

[mpearce]

One additional problem with the change as proposed:

What happens to the upteen CPL holders who currently own, and may carry, a MI Pistol? I don't see anything that says they will be notified of the change. So assuming the new law goes into affect one day they carry thier MI Pistol under thier CPL legaly and the next they are committing a felony?

Maybe this will only apply to a handful of CPL holders. Ones who carry MI Pistols (perhaps in their car only) and don't frequent the various gun rights discussion boards onlne to hear about it. Then again, perhaps there will be quite a few affected.

I'd hate to see us supporting something that will make felons out of legal gun owners / CPL holders without at least insisting the state notify them of the change in the law prior to it going into effect.

Read the bill as passed by the Senate for SB761. It provides a grandfather provision on page 3 line 23. But you must lawfully own the firearms 30 inches or less licensed under specific statute sections as a pistol.

[mpearce]

Some things to remember about these three bills are that these bills have to all pass to become effective. If one fails, they all fail.

Yes, if the three bills are passed by the House as the Senate passed them and signed by the Governor, then a "Michigan pistol" becomes a rifle on January 1, 2012. Anyone who is a lawful owner and registered may continue to carry, possess and transport as a pistol. Everyone else has to follow the rules for a rifle. I believe a sell after January 1, 2012, will eliminate the firearms status as a Michigan pistol for the new owner.

Finally, Attorney General opinions are not law. They are merely persuasive authority to be upheld and adopted by a court of law in this State at the court's discretion. This means the judge can say that he disagrees with the AG and hold otherwise. The opinion is akin to any opinion that I may give as an attorney, except my opinions mean nothing to the courts. Attorney General is given an ear by the courts based on the position as the individual is voted in by the people to represent the People of the State of Michigan, whereas I am hired to represent my client and not the whole state.

By the way, a law review article, a treatise, an opinion from another jurisdiction, and dictionary definition are all persuasive authorities as well.

[Pistol Teacher]

..

[mpearce]

Attorney General opinions are binding on the agency requesting the opinion. So if Lansing Police Department asks the State AG a opinion then they have to follow the AGs guidance.

The police are not the ones that make the final decision in cases, it is the courts and that is where it matters in the long run.

[dpgperftest]

I think this will be good if it passes . Note all gun registering in :bs: in my book

[Pistol Teacher]

..

[Pistol Teacher]

..

[Bronson]

Read the bill as passed by the Senate for SB761. It provides a grandfather provision on page 3 line 23. But you must lawfully own the firearms 30 inches or less licensed under specific statute sections as a pistol.

In one of these forums the question came up about registering a firearm to a trust much like an NFA item. Would you be willing to share your thoughts on that?

Thanks,

Bronson

[dpgperftest]

Spoken like a true Anti-Gunner Gun Controller.
Why do people that are for more gun restrictions call real gun owners anti 2A ?????????Can some one explain it ?

[SADAacp]

Why do people that are for more gun restrictions call real gun owners anti 2A ?????????Can some one explain it ?

If the SB's pass and signed into law, it only removes restrictions (registration) of a specific category of pistols in Michigan (Michigan Pistols). Even though the Michigan Pistols are defined as rifles and shotguns by federal law, I see no reason whatsoever to remove restrictions (registration) only on pistols that are defined as such under Michigan law. My point is, if the State is going to remove restrictions on a specific class of pistols, either remove restrictions on all pistols in Michigan, as defined, or leave the laws the way they currently are. The enacting of the Bill's doesn't do squat for any 2A movement when all other pistols in Michigan retain the restrictions. All this does is saves a few Elmer's from the obligation to obtain a LTP for firearms, that until these Bill's reared there heads, had no interest or use for Michigan Pistols to begin with.

[dpgperftest]

If the SB's pass and signed into law, it only removes restrictions (registration) of a specific category of pistols in Michigan (Michigan Pistols). Even though the Michigan Pistols are defined as rifles and shotguns by federal law, I see no reason whatsoever to remove restrictions (registration) only on pistols that are defined as such under Michigan law. My point is, if the State is going to remove restrictions on a specific class of pistols, either remove restrictions on all pistols in Michigan, as defined, or leave the laws the way they currently are. The enacting of the Bill's doesn't do squat for any 2A movement when all other pistols in Michigan retain the restrictions. All this does is saves a few Elmer's from the obligation to obtain a LTP for firearms, that until these Bill's reared there heads, had no interest or use for Michigan Pistols to begin with.
I agree 99% I am for removing all registering and all restrictions. But I get labeled is a anti gun person when I say this WTF
The way is see it a long gun is a long no matter if you saw it in half.

Example i stick the blue oval on a Chevy it don't make it a ford its still a Chevy

[westcliffe01]

Gentlemen, the only way to be able to carry a loaded and accurate (or longer range) weapon in or upon a vehicle of any description at any place, including on private land is when such a weapon complies with the present MI Pistol definition and the person is in possession of a CPL.

With this proposed change to the law, as of Jan 1 2012, a farmer on his tractor who would like a loaded weapon "at the ready" for coyotes/feral dogs/pigs will have to be satisfied with a handgun. As anyone with any experience knows, it is considerably harder to hit an animal at 50-150 yards with a handgun than with a long gun. To the point where a handgun is frequently useless.

Besides the fact that the restriction on carrying loaded weapons is an infringement on our God given rights, this is a very real practical matter and there is no process whatsoever available under the law to get an exception to this law. So far, if you were serious, you first of all controlled your behavior (so as to qualify for a CPL), took the training, paid the money and went through the multiple month long process to get your CPL. Then you have to continue to be a model citizen, lest it get taken away from you.

Then you pick one of the small number of long guns which "fit" the MI pistol category and go through the registration process.

The vast majority of firearm owners prefer not to go through all of the above. Firearm manufacturers easily can make weapons compliant with the MI Long gun requirement, since with a 21-24" barrel and no folding stock every weapon will skip classification as a MI pistol. Many even with a folding stock will exceed the 30" threshold, just not the versions with the 16.25" to 18" barrels.

So while this ruling will have little impact on city folks (except those who want to carry one of these loaded and ready to go in their car) it certainly has practical implications for people active in the country and I think the change is really detrimental.

I personally don't approve of the concept of walking down to the local Walmart with one of these slung across my back, even if legal, just because it is definitely going to make a lot of people uncomfortable and bring more restrictions in its wake. However, what we carry in our cars (and other vehicles) should be none of anyone's business.

[The General]

Gentlemen, the only way to be able to carry a loaded and accurate (or longer range) weapon in or upon a vehicle of any description at any place, including on private land is when such a weapon complies with the present MI Pistol definition and the person is in possession of a CPL

I'm pretty sure you're wrong here.


If the SB's pass and signed into law, it only removes restrictions (registration) of a specific category of pistols in Michigan (Michigan Pistols). Even though the Michigan Pistols are defined as rifles and shotguns by federal law, I see no reason whatsoever to remove restrictions (registration) only on pistols that are defined as such under Michigan law. My point is, if the State is going to remove restrictions on a specific class of pistols, either remove restrictions on all pistols in Michigan, as defined, or leave the laws the way they currently are. The enacting of the Bill's doesn't do squat for any 2A movement when all other pistols in Michigan retain the restrictions. All this does is saves a few Elmer's from the obligation to obtain a LTP for firearms, that until these Bill's reared there heads, had no interest or use for Michigan Pistols to begin with.

This is just the first step, soon there will be bills that remove pistols all together from the registry.

Increments......

[westcliffe01]

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT)
Act 328 of 1931


750.227d Transporting or possessing firearm in or upon motor vehicle or self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel; conditions; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

Sec. 227d.

(1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a motor vehicle or any self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel a firearm, other than a pistol, unless the firearm is unloaded and is 1 or more of the following:

(a) Taken down.

(b) Enclosed in a case.

(c) Carried in the trunk of the vehicle.

(d) Inaccessible from the interior of the vehicle.

(2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.


History: Add. 1981, Act 103, ***. Mar. 31, 1982

And this from the DNR website:



Transporting Firearms, Crossbows, and Bows and Arrows

These rules apply whether your vehicle is parked, stopped, moving or is on private or public property. Firearms must be unloaded in the barrel, and all arrows must be in a quiver when a hunter is afield outside the legal hunting hours.

At all times when carried in or on a motor vehicle, including snowmobiles:

Rifles, shotguns, muzzleloading and other firearms must be unloaded in both barrel and magazine and enclosed in a case or carried in the trunk of a vehicle.


Crossbows, slingshots, and bows and arrows must be enclosed in a case or unstrung or carried in the trunk of a vehicle.

At all times, when carried in or on an off-road vehicle (ORV):

Rifles, shotguns, muzzleloading and other firearms must be unloaded in both barrel and magazine and enclosed in a case or equipped with and made inoperative by a manufactured keylocked trigger-housing mechanism.


Crossbows, slingshots, and bows and arrows must be enclosed in a case or unstrung.

At all times, when carried in or on a motor-propelled boat or sailboat:

Rifles, shotguns, muzzleloading and other firearms must be unloaded in both barrel and magazine when the motor is operating or the boat is under sail.


Firearms may not be loaded until the forward momentum of the boat has ceased.

Exception: These rules do not apply to a pistol carried under authority of a concealed pistol license or properly carried under authority of a specific exception from the requirement of a concealed pistol license. See Statewide Handgun Regulations.


I'm pretty sure you're wrong here.

[The General]

^^^^I don't care what the DNR says. The law you cited doesn't say anything about loaded weapons on private property.

[westcliffe01]

You show me any law that says you are allowed a loaded rifle in or on any vehicle anywhere ?


^^^^I don't care what the DNR says. The law you cited doesn't say anything about loaded weapons on private property.

[Pistol Teacher]

..

[Pistol Teacher]

..

[The General]

You mean Private property that you own.

exactly.

[westcliffe01]

ARTICLE III
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 2
MANAGEMENT OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES
SUBCHAPTER 1
WILDLIFE
PART 401

324.40104 Definitions; T, V.
Sec. 40104. (1) “Take” means to hunt with any weapon, dog, raptor, or other wild or domestic animal
trained for that purpose; kill; chase; follow; harass; harm; pursue; shoot; rob; trap; capture; or collect animals,
or to attempt to engage in such an activity.
(2) “Transport” means to carry or ship animals within this state or to points outside this state.
(3) “Trap” means taking or attempting to take animals by means of a trap or other device designed to kill
or capture animals.
(4) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported, except devices exclusively moved by human power.
History: Add. 1995, Act 57, Imd. ***. May 24, 1995.
Popular name: Act 451
Popular name: NREPA

324.40111 Taking animal from in or upon vehicle; transporting or possessing firearm in or upon vehicle; transporting bow in or upon vehicle; written permission to hunt or discharge firearm.
Sec. 40111. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this part or in a department order authorized under section 40107, a person shall not take an animal from in or upon a vehicle.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this part or in a department order authorized under section 40107, a person shall not transport or have in possession a firearm in or upon a vehicle, unless the firearm is unloaded in both barrel and magazine and enclosed in a case, carried in the trunk of a vehicle, or unloaded in a motorized boat.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in this part, a person shall not transport or have in possession a bow in or upon a vehicle, unless the bow is unstrung, enclosed in a case, or carried in the trunk of a vehicle.
(4) A person shall not hunt or discharge a firearm within 150 yards of an occupied building, dwelling, house, residence, or cabin, or any barn or other building used in connection with a farm operation, without obtaining the written permission of the owner, renter, or occupant of the property.

History: Add. 1995, Act 57, Imd. ***. May 24, 1995.
Popular name: Act 451
Popular name: NREPA

[Pistol Teacher]

..

[westcliffe01]

I cannot find anything anywhere that permits loaded rifles or shotguns on any form of vehicle. I would really appreciate if you guys could be so kind as to point it out if I am missing it. The paragraphs quoted are in the compiled Michigan firearm law, so I imagine it was put there for a purpose, whether you like it or not or agree with it or not.

The subject of this thread is the re-classification of a pistol, which removes the final means whereby it historically was possible to carry a rifle provided one had a concealed pistol license. Now this right/privilege apparently will be lost forever in this state.

Some would have us believe this is progress ? They must be pals of Bloomberg and his chronies

[The General]

if you want to carry a loaded weapon that isn't a pistol in your vehicle, then get the law for you to do so.

Why do some other states classify the vehicle as an extension of the home and Michigan doesn't? That needs to be changed in MI.

[westcliffe01]

How about beefing up those rights before taking others away from law abiding citizens ? What is so great about this proposed change ? Those who don't want to register their MI pistols just buy one with a longer barrel or a fixed stock ?

Considering that the restrictive law has been around since 1995 and that it is only becoming more restrictive by these changes, I have little hope that there will ever be any relaxation on the carrying of rifles or shotguns in vehicles for defensive purposes.

In states like Arizona it is perfectly legal to carry a loaded rifle on your vehicle and the population doesn't seem to have annihilated themselves. Maybe one wants people doing this to have had some training, and the only group now in that boat are the CPL holders.

[donald150]

if you want to carry a loaded weapon that isn't a pistol in your vehicle, then get the law for you to do so.

Why do some other states classify the vehicle as an extension of the home and Michigan doesn't? That needs to be changed in MI.

Wouldn't it make more sense to do what you are talking about FIRST or as a part of this bill?

It would make more sense to me that we should at least get something in return for this stupidity.


If we were having this discussion in 1999 I would agree that it should be changed back to 26" however, it is now a sort of loophole and something we CURRENTLY (until other laws are changed) benefit from.

This is like gun owners voting to remove the Open carry in a PFZ loophole and telling the open carry people that if they don't like it they should go get PFZ's repealed. :roll:

I'm not saying that the registration should stay, I just think it was a piss poor place to start.

[westcliffe01]

You have yet to quote any law that indicates that you are permitted to do as you say. There are lots of laws and lots of people and lots of people who don't care what it says in the law. So where is there a counter to the laws that most certainly DO restrict what you can do IN/ON YOUR VEHICLE on private land ?


^^^^I don't care what the DNR says. The law you cited doesn't say anything about loaded weapons on private property.

[Korey5640]

In my opinion, this is a step backwards, not forwards. Why are there so many out there that want this to pass? Why eliminate one or more options of firearms you may carry loaded and concealed with a CPL?

I get it, some don't like registration of pistols...but this is not the way to fix that.

[westcliffe01]

It fundamentally doesn't change ANYTHING about registration of what is a pistol to 99% of people... And it doesn't affect what is a rifle to another 99% of people. But I guess that some anti CPL'ers would prefer to take something away from those who have their CPL and comply with the current PISTOL registration requirements.

[RayMich]

This is just the first step, soon there will be bills that remove pistols all together from the registry.

Increments......

That is one hell of an "Increment". You are proposing to screw those who have played by the rule of law in the past, with the hopes that SOME DAY the legislature MAY decide to get rid of pistol registrations completely, simply because YOU are inconvenienced by having to register your shotgun or rifle that is 30 inches or less in length.


^^^^I don't care what the DNR says. The law you cited doesn't say anything about loaded weapons on private property.

Tell that to the DNR officer when he "legally" comes upon your land after watching you place a loaded long gun inside your vehicle and confiscates your truck, your guns and whatever game you may have AND hands you a court summons and a $300++ ticket, for violating those DNR regulations. You can scream and holler all you want but a DNR officer has the legal power to enter your property without a warrant if he has reasonable suspicion that you have violated ANY game law or regulation. This happens more often that many would want to admit.


if you want to carry a loaded weapon that isn't a pistol in your vehicle, then get the law for you to do so.

Why do some other states classify the vehicle as an extension of the home and Michigan doesn't? That needs to be changed in MI.

Yeah, sure! Throw other law-abiding gun owners under the bus, simply because YOU are inconvenienced by having to register that rifle or shotgun that is 30 inches or less in length. Current law ALREADY allows carrying of a loaded weapon that is a "Michigan Pistol" inside a vehicle. This change in the law will remove that right.

Why screw other law-abiding gun owners who DID jump through the hoops to be able to legally carry such a weapon inside their vehicle. This law seriously affects farmers who now can LEGALLY carry a loaded "Michigan Pistol" in their combines and tractors for self defense and/or varmint control under the authority of their CPL.

This is typical selfish FUDD mentality. -- "Screw everyone else, as long as MY guns are not affected by this change in the law."

I see this change in the law as another gun-control law that eliminates more citizens' rights to keep and bear arms. The confusion it will created for law-abiding citizens and LEOs is immeasurable.

At best, if previous Michigan Pistols are grandfathered, you will have identical guns that will be treated differently dependent ONLY on the date they were bought and/or registered. This confusion runs the risk of getting law-abiding gun owners arrested, forcing them to hire legal representation to prove their innocence, simply because a cop may THINK that the Michigan Pistol in question MIGHT be a rifle, due to the fact that the gun owner was not able to produce a copy of the pistol registration right there on the side of the road. -- Keep in mind that one is only required to carry a pistol registration for the first 30 days. After that, most pistol owners will file away their registrations at home and not carry them with the gun.

Unless these changes in the law are tied in to laws eliminating registration of ALL pistols in Michigan AND also tied to a law that allows the carrying of loaded rifles and shotguns in a vehicle by CPL holders it is a BAD law and is a huge step BACKWARDS in our long fight for our Second Amendment rights.

Yes, Michigan should classify your vehicle as an extension of your home and allow carrying a loaded firearm without a CPL, but to my knowledge there is no such change being proposed, and no one knows if or when such a proposal may come to pass. So wishing for this change is no excuse for the change to eliminate the "Michigan Pistol" classification.

[RayMich]

It fundamentally doesn't change ANYTHING about registration of what is a pistol to 99% of people... And it doesn't affect what is a rifle to another 99% of people. But I guess that some anti CPL'ers would prefer to take something away from those who have their CPL and comply with the current PISTOL registration requirements.
This is simply one more step in the quest for more gun-control. Taking away the rights of a "small" chunk of gun-owners at a time. Typical "Divide and Conquer" tactics.

[shurhouse]

I see posts in this thread discussing " we're losing a small part of our 2A rights", "the anti-gunners are at it again", "I'm losing this or that", when in reality it's none of those reasons. It all boils down to the firearms retailers of Michigan are pushing this, so that some of the firearms that they have to sell now as a pistol can then be sold as a rifle/shotgun making sales of those products easier to push.
So if this passes the only ones who should have a finger pointed at them, is your local gun shop.

PS - I'm for leaving the law as it stands now.

[RDak]

if you want to carry a loaded weapon that isn't a pistol in your vehicle, then get the law for you to do so.

Why do some other states classify the vehicle as an extension of the home and Michigan doesn't? That needs to be changed in MI.

Of course we want that.

Until then, at least let us have the 30" rule.

That's why I bought a pistol grip Mossberg 500, 20 gauge that has an OAL of 28 inches and registered it as a pistol.

(Off topic a bit but I copied the original RI-060 and had it laminated to carry at all times I carry the 28" pistol.)

[donald150]

I see posts in this thread discussing " we're losing a small part of our 2A rights", "the anti-gunners are at it again", "I'm losing this or that", when in reality it's none of those reasons. It all boils down to the firearms retailers of Michigan are pushing this, so that some of the firearms that they have to sell now as a pistol can then be sold as a rifle/shotgun making sales of those products easier to push.
So if this passes the only ones who should have a finger pointed at them, is your local gun shop.

PS - I'm for leaving the law as it stands now.



Btw: I talked with the owner/manager of the two gun stores by me and they had no clue this was happening.

[Imshootin]

Btw: I talked with the owner/manager of the two gun stores by me and they had no clue this was happening.

...and that surprises you because...?

[donald150]

...and that surprises you because...?
Never said it suprised me.:boxing:

[Imshootin]

Never said it suprised me.:boxing:

That was a rhetorical question. You can take off your boxing gloves.

[donald150]

That was a rhetorical question. You can take off your boxing gloves.
I know. I just Like to use them.:argue:

[Pistol Teacher]

Btw: I talked with the owner/manager of the two gun stores by me and they had no clue this was happening.

It sucks getting lied to ain't it.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billanalysis/House/pdf/2009-HLA-4501-4.pdf



THE APPARENT PROBLEM:Some gun dealers say that Michigan's current definition of "pistol" should be revised because it classifies too many firearms as pistols rather than long guns. Pistols have been more regulated than long guns in Michigan since at least 1927. Current pistol restrictions include age, license, and residency rules. For example, only a Michigan resident can purchase a pistol in this state and then must have either a purchase license or a concealed pistol license to do so. A person must be at least 21 years old to buy a pistol from a dealer with a federal firearms license (FFL) (but may purchase a pistol from a private

seller at age 18 ). In contrast, rifles and shotguns more than 30 inches long can be purchased by 18 year olds (even from FFL dealers) and by residents of contiguous states.

No license is needed to buy a long gun. It is illegal for pawnshops, second-hand dealers, and junk dealers to accept or resell pistols, but they may apparently sell long guns.

Moreover, the law against using armor-piercing ammunition applies only to ammunition used in pistols. [Note: the section labeled Background Information contains a partial list of provisions in Michigan law that could be affected by the proposed change to the definition of pistol.]

[donald150]

It sucks getting lied to ain't it.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billanalysis/House/pdf/2009-HLA-4501-4.pdf
Still not lied too. It says SOME gun dealers not ALL

What disturbs me is the dates on that link all say 2010 instead of 2012.

[Imshootin]

Still not lied too. It says SOME gun dealers not ALL

What disturbs me is the dates on that link all say 2010 instead of 2012.

It's been in the works since then. Just another example of the slow moving legislative process.

[Pistol Teacher]

..

[a#1]

I've been watching the various forms of these bills for a couple years now.

It inspired me to work a bit harder on that part of my collection, I've now got 7 firearms that are "pistols"

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion, but I do have a related, yet slightly off-topic question.

I'd like to generate proof for these guns that they were registered as pistols prior to any law changes.

I tend to keep my gun papers in order, and copies of any applicable laws with me wherever I go (in the truck). EVERYTHING, all my registrations, and copies of all the stupid Michigan gun laws, AG opinions, and MSP Bulletins. Just as something to show to an officer and cite why I'm NOT breaking the law.

One of the guns isn't difficult at all, I bought it before the green cards went away. I loved the green cards, I could hand it to a cop as proof I had a legally owned pistol, registered to me, and on the back it had his bosses signature.

This was the only one I bought from a dealer as such, the others were made by me, after the green cards went away. I did the RI-060 for them, and still have both my seller and purchasers copies, I turned the others in to the proper person in my county.

I've done what I was legally obligated to do, but have no real proof, or any guarantee that other responsible parties did their part correctly.


I've made four attempts so far to acquire some sort of documentation from local law enforcement.

1. I stopped a cop in a car at a gas station, and asked him if he could run my numbers through his car computer and tell me what pistols were registered to me. He told me the computer in the car couldn't give him that information, he'd have to call the station, and suggested I go there.

2. I went to the station, and asked the secretary to talk with the person that would be responsible for that officers questions. I spoke with a uniformed officer who told me he couldn't help me because they can't randomly run LEIN without a reason.

3. I returned to the station to talk to the "gun clerk" responsible for the purchase permits, and who I dropped my RI-060 forms off to when I did them. I was given the same answer. She said she couldn't run LEIN on me without a reason, and couldn't get the serial numbers any other way.

4. I tried the local State police post as a last resort, but found the door locked at noon on a Monday and a sign saying they have no lobby hours anymore.

What annoys me most about the local cops is that they said they couldn't randomly run LEIN on someone without a reason.......If this is true, then what is that cop doing that follows me with his lights out on my way to work a couple times a month?

Now I just don't know where to go or who to talk to next.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

*Edited for spelling

[Pistol Teacher]

..

[RayMich]

Exactly two months ago, I went to the Records Department at my local Sheriff's office to drop off the RI-060 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ri-060_6454_7.pdf) forms for a pistol I had just purchased. While there, I asked the clerk to check their pistol database and tell me which pistols were showing under my name.

Here is the link to the thread relating my experience.
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=152348

[RDak]

a#1: I know this isn't foolproof or what you were really looking for but I abide by the law, like you, and register my pistols.

I note on the back of the RI-060 that I either hand delivered it to the PD or mailed it to the PD on the date I did those things (and initial that add on statement). I keep the RI-060 forms forever even though I don't have to.

I believe that that is more than enough. I complied with the law and that's the end of it for me.

I also believe that that is evidence I did turn in my form for registration of the pistol.

[donald150]

I dropped off 2 of them today and for the first time I had them date and time stamp them .they were both michigan pistols.
in oakland county the date and time stamp says Oakland county records bureau on it .

I will be doing this with all of them from now on :thup:

[donald150]

Followup on the post above.

Lady called me from Oakland County and questioned why I was the buyer AND seller on the RI60.:whistle:

This is the first time I have been questioned about that.
She asked me where I bought them and I told her like it was. One was assembled and one was a shotgun that I put a pistol grip on.
She was happy with that and told me that I need to make a note on the RI60 that they were "assembled" or "converted".

I post this for your information.:biggrin:

[RayMich]

Does anyone know the status of these bills?

Did they get signed into law?

[durus5995]

Does anyone know the status of these bills?

Did they get signed into law?


Looks like they did not get out of the house committee before the legislature went on break. Which is good because I still need to get my carbine registered.

[luckless]

This issue is only dividing the gun community in Michigan. We would be better off fighting the antis than each other.

We need to eliminate gun registry in Michigan all together.

The Michigan definition of a "firearm" needs to be change to be less restrictive than the federal definition, resulting in a blow for state autonomy as well as individual gun rights.

Open carry needs to be allowed everywhere, including your vehicle, for any legal resident.

These items will benefit every citizen of Michigan and the state will not be able to pick winners and losers. We need a unified voice to fight Lansing!

[35percent]

Ok so Ive tried to keep up with this but have a question about registering a pistol with a RI60 to myself. It's going to be on a virgin stripped lower, but on the RI60 do I have to list a barrel length or can I put <16 or do I have to put 10.5 or 7" or something like that.

Trying to get this lower registered as a pistol ASAP when it comes in through my FFL.

Thanks.

[Korey5640]

Looks like they did not get out of the house committee before the legislature went on break. Which is good because I still need to get my carbine registered.

Too late anyhow: (as it is written in the law posted)


<<(2) A PERSON WHO, BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2012, LAWFULLY OWNED,
POSSESSED, CARRIED, OR TRANSPORTED A FIREARM 30 INCHES OR LESS IN
LENGTH AS A PISTOL PURSUANT TO A LICENSE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2
OR 5B OR PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 2 OR 5B MAY
CONTINUE TO LAWFULLY OWN, POSSESS, CARRY, OR TRANSPORT THAT
FIREARM AS A PISTOL AFTER JANUARY 1, 2012 PURSUANT TO THAT LICENSE
OR ANY RENEWAL OF THAT LICENSE OR PURSUANT TO THAT EXEMPTION.>>


It would appear that unless they go back and change the date, which would then have to pass the house and senate all over again, anyone who doesn't currently have something registered now is too late. I hope I am wrong about this, but it appears that would be the case.

[langenc]

I think this will be good if it passes . Note all gun registering in :bs: in my book


I hope you have told your legislators that, forcefully..

[donald150]

Ok so Ive tried to keep up with this but have a question about registering a pistol with a RI60 to myself. It's going to be on a virgin stripped lower, but on the RI60 do I have to list a barrel length or can I put <16 or do I have to put 10.5 or 7" or something like that.

Trying to get this lower registered as a pistol ASAP when it comes in through my FFL.

Thanks.
Depending on what buffer tube you use, it will fall below 26" even with a 10.5" barrel.

It appears to be too late anyway to register a rifle as a Mi pistol so just make sure your pistol ends up less than 26".

As for the ri-60, go with whatever barrel length you plan on using. It doesn't really matter because you can change barrel lengths and caliber on it later, it is done all the time with other pistols like glocks and Thompson Contenders.

[35percent]

Ok thanks for the reply.

[westcliffe01]

It sounds like 35percent is building a pistol without stock since he mentions the short barrels. Those weapons are not affected by the new legislation.

If it has a stock, then the barrel has to be 16" min by federal law else it is an SBR and those have been ruled illegal in Michigan by the AG.

[donald150]

It sounds like 35percent is building a pistol without stock since he mentions the short barrels. Those weapons are not affected by the new legislation.

If it has a stock, then the barrel has to be 16" min by federal law else it is an SBR and those have been ruled illegal in Michigan by the AG.

It would be affected if it was over 26". Apparently the ATF doesn't consider it a pistol if it is over 26" even without a stock. So if he builds it OVER 26", he would have to get it registered as a MI Pistol to be able to carry it.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/10/foghorn/franklin-armorys-new-ar-15-is-neither-a-pistol-nor-a-rifle/

http://www.franklinarmory.com/XO-26_Letter__c_.pdf



Edit: It looks like it would also have to have a forward grip to qualify and you could not conceal it. So I guess you would be right, I was misreading the letter above.

[Flash-hider]

I would think that if the 3 Bills make it to the House floor for a vote that the 01/01/2012 date will have been changed. Most legislation when sent to the Governor's desk for signing, isn't retroactive.
After all it is still legal to buy and register a "Michigan Pistol."

[35percent]

To save myself the hassle I'll just make sure it's under 26" in length as I want to have be able to transport it in my vehicle and camping/backpacking.

And it seems like the date would have to be changed since they can't retroactively enforce a law that wasn't a law yet.

[Quaamik]

To save myself the hassle I'll just make sure it's under 26" in length as I want to have be able to transport it in my vehicle and camping/backpacking. .......

Good luck with that.

If it is under 26 inches with the stock extended Michigan considers it a SBR/SBS and as such illegal. One of the complaints about this whole section of the law. It stems from a opinion issued by the AG many years ago. Federal law on the other had measures it with the stock folded (if possible).

[donald150]

Good luck with that.

If it is under 26 inches with the stock extended Michigan considers it a SBR/SBS and as such illegal. One of the complaints about this whole section of the law. It stems from a opinion issued by the AG many years ago. Federal law on the other had measures it with the stock folded (if possible).
What stock? :shrugs:

[forrest0872]

Good luck with that.

If it is under 26 inches with the stock extended Michigan considers it a SBR/SBS and as such illegal. One of the complaints about this whole section of the law. It stems from a opinion issued by the AG many years ago. Federal law on the other had measures it with the stock folded (if possible).


you have it backwards,

federal measures extended
mi. measures folded or shortest.

[westcliffe01]

If it has no stock (cannot be shoulder fired) I don't think there is any limit to how long a pistol is allowed to be. The restriction works the other way: Federal law requires that IF it can be "shouldered" then it must have a 16" barrel and the overall length must be >26". Michigan goes further and says that the 26" has to be measured with the stock in its shortest position.

So if the "pistol" has no stock, it is a pistol plain and simple. I'm not aware of any maximum limit on the barrel length, only that a forward vertical grip is not allowed, since that again makes it an NFA item.

[Super Trucker]

Any 18 year old can buy a stripped lower and make a MI pistol, they can buy a shotgun and later add a pistol grip making a MI pistol, etc, etc.
If anybody has ever registered a gun in MI, you are on the list. This bill does very little to make said list disappear. It does however make it not possible to carry a viable weapon for defensive purposes.

By not registering a MI Pistol I have way less ability to defend myself in certain situations (big trucks are not hijacked by people with sling shots).

So can somebody explain exactly what I gained by these bills passing, because I am seeing not a thing being positive about them.

[Quaamik]

you have it backwards,

federal measures extended
mi. measures folded or shortest.

Correct. Sorry about that. Typing faster than I think ... or something like that.

[karcent]

Any 18 year old can buy a stripped lower and make a MI pistol,

Wrong. You must be 21 and a resident of the State to purchase a stripped lower receiver.

[donald150]

Wrong. You must be 21 and a resident of the State to purchase a stripped lower receiver.
Private sale, person to person.
:poke:

[Super Trucker]

Wrong. You must be 21 and a resident of the State to purchase a stripped lower receiver.

So your professional gun dealer opinion is that a 18 year can not legally acquire their own AR MI pistol?



Lets see somebody has to jump though a couple hoops until they are old enough vs Losing a effective defensive tool for a some people. :banghead:

[forrest0872]

So your professional gun dealer opinion is that a 18 year can not legally acquire their own AR MI pistol?



Lets see somebody has to jump though a couple hoops until they are old enough vs Losing a effective defensive tool for a some people. :banghead:

it's not an opinion, it is the law.

pistol or "other" (stripped lower) = 21 from an FFL

private sale = 18

[Super Trucker]

it's not an opinion, it is the law.

pistol or "other" (stripped lower) = 21 from an FFL

private sale = 18

Are you also saying that an 18 year old can not legally buy a AR MI Pistol?

[Roundballer]

Are you also saying that an 18 year old can not legally buy a AR MI Pistol?
You are asking several questions, there is not a single answer.

1) An individual needs to be 21 to purchase from an FFL:

a) A striped lower
b) An AR ( or any ) Pistol
2) An Individual may purchase at the age of 18, a Rifle or Shotgun (that fits the definition of a "Michigan Pistol" ) from an FFL
3) An individual may purchase at the age of 18, any of the firearms (or parts) that are restricted in the purchase from an FFL.

Does that make it any clearer? :hoppinhappy:

[bikedamon]

Plain and simple, I don't want to register a shoulder fired weapon. If you want to carry a loaded rifle in the car, then work on getting the law prohibiting you from doing so removed.

This is where I am on this too. :twocents:

[maustin195]

This is where I am on this too. :twocents:
If you don't want to register one then how about buying your shoulder fired weapon at least 30" long. Not hard to do and it leaves to option as it currently is to buy one 26"-30" and registering it.

[RayMich]

Originally Posted by The General
Plain and simple, I don't want to register a shoulder fired weapon. If you want to carry a loaded rifle in the car, then work on getting the law prohibiting you from doing so removed.


This is where I am on this too. :twocents:

This is typical FUDD mentality, "Screw everyone else as long as I get my way". That doesn't help anyone's 2nd Amendment rights.

The law allowing a shoulder fired weapon to be legally carried in the car already IS in the books. If the shoulder fired weapon is 30 inches or less and 26 inches or longer in length, it can legally be carried loaded in the car as long as it is properly registered.

You basically want to take away the rights of those who ALREADY have the ability to do so merely because you don't want to register your long gun as a "Michigan Pistol". If YOU don't want to register your shoulder fired gun, then work to repeal the pistol registration laws rather than screwing those who are currently complying with the existing law.

[bikedamon]

I would argue you are doing the same thing - you want to compromise my rights so you can have extras. The Michigan law requiring registration of rifles between 26-30" is more restrictive than the federal law and other state's laws. Why should I face an extra length restriction (having to register) just so that a few people can carry AK folders as "pistols"?

In fact, I would go so far as to say people with registered folders have been taking advantage of a loophole...correct me if I'm wrong here, but there is no law stating "folder rifle's can be registered and carried as pistols" (is there?). Instead, we have a law allowing for CC of pistols, and we have another law restricting rifles between 26-30" as pistols. Like many laws the impact and scope was poorly considered and very seriously doubt it would have ever been put into place had they known people would be driving around with loaded AK folders under their car seat as their "CC pistol."

Registration of what are proper rifles is stupid, always has been, and we're finally getting it done away with and now a bunch of people are crying because you can't carry a shorty AR or AK as a pistol anymore? What has the greater impact to our 2nd Amendment? Forcing registration of rifles between 26"-30" or not allowing people to CC a shorty AR or folding AK? I think there's your answer. Which affects the most gun owners?

We shouldn't even need to have this discussion. We shouldn't have a more restrictive length restriction in MI. We should be allowed SBRs in Michigan. We should be allowed to carry whatever we want concealed if we have a CPL. But instead we're stuck with poorly constructed spaghetti laws that aren't well thought out.

*editing to add that I really hope the grandfather clause is put in pace to allow those with these already registered to continue to do so. Like all the rest of this I see that being a real picnic for citizens and LEO's to understand though.

(why not just allow any weapon to be registered for carry?)


This is typical FUDD mentality, "Screw everyone else as long as I get my way". That doesn't help anyone's 2nd Amendment rights.

The law allowing a shoulder fired weapon to be legally carried in the car already IS in the books. If the shoulder fired weapon is 30 inches or less and 26 inches or longer in length, it can legally be carried loaded in the car as long as it is properly registered.

You basically want to take away the rights of those who ALREADY have the ability to do so merely because you don't want to register your long gun as a "Michigan Pistol". If YOU don't want to register your shoulder fired gun, then work to repeal the pistol registration laws rather than screwing those who are currently complying with the existing law.

[SADAacp]

You are asking several questions, there is not a single answer.

1) An individual needs to be 21 to purchase from an FFL:

a) A striped lower
b) An AR ( or any ) Pistol
2) An Individual may purchase at the age of 18, a Rifle or Shotgun (that fits the definition of a "Michigan Pistol" ) from an FFL
3) An individual may purchase at the age of 18, any of the firearms (or parts) that are restricted in the purchase from an FFL.

Does that make it any clearer? :hoppinhappy:

If the firearm meets the definition of a Michigan Pistol, an RI-010 or if the buyer has a CPL, a RI-060 is required. Hence, 21 or older to purchase handgun from FFL. Or did you mean may not?

[Roundballer]

If the firearm meets the definition of a Michigan Pistol, an RI-010 or if the buyer has a CPL, a RI-060 is required. Hence, 21 or older to purchase handgun from FFL. Or did you mean may not?
I meant what I said. Those long arms are considered to be just rifles and shotguns by the Feds. The Feds only require the individual to 18 to purchase them.

A RI-10 can be obtained by an 18 yo. And that portion of the law is at a State level and only requires the individual to be 18 yo.

Note:
In my post that you quoted, I used the term "Michigan Pistol". I DID NOT say handgun. I DID NOT say federally defined pistol. I hope that you understand what a "Michigan Pistol" is. :whistle:

[Bronson]

If YOU don't want to register your shoulder fired gun, then work to repeal the pistol registration laws

You mean like the bill that would bring MI in line with Federal defintions and the rest of the states, thereby eliminating the MI pistol and no longer requiring the registering of a class of weapons that are currently required to be registered as a pistol?

Bronson

[Super Trucker]

You are asking several questions, there is not a single answer.

1) An individual needs to be 21 to purchase from an FFL:

a) A striped lower
b) An AR ( or any ) Pistol
2) An Individual may purchase at the age of 18, a Rifle or Shotgun (that fits the definition of a "Michigan Pistol" ) from an FFL
3) An individual may purchase at the age of 18, any of the firearms (or parts) that are restricted in the purchase from an FFL.

Does that make it any clearer? :hoppinhappy:


Finally somebody gets it. I reread what I wrote and can not see anyplace where I mention buying anything from a FFL.
FFL dealers are who will gain from CPL holders losing rights.

1. If this bills is signed into law all CPL holders will lose rights.
2. If this bill dies NOBODY loses rights.

I don't understand why so few people get that.

Bottom line an 18 year old can legally own a gun to defend themselves, MI Pistol or long gun under the current laws.

[Super Trucker]

I would argue you are doing the same thing - you want to compromise my rights so you can have extras. The Michigan law requiring registration of rifles between 26-30" is more restrictive than the federal law and other state's laws. Why should I face an extra length restriction (having to register) just so that a few people can carry AK folders as "pistols"?
What rights of your are being comprimised? I mean exactly what rights, please list them. I am not for you losing one right that you already have. You however don't seem to grasp that concept.

In fact, I would go so far as to say people with registered folders have been taking advantage of a loophole...correct me if I'm wrong here, but there is no law stating "folder rifle's can be registered and carried as pistols" (is there?). Instead, we have a law allowing for CC of pistols, and we have another law restricting rifles between 26-30" as pistols. Like many laws the impact and scope was poorly considered and very seriously doubt it would have ever been put into place had they known people would be driving around with loaded AK folders under their car seat as their "CC pistol."

Registration of what are proper rifles is stupid, always has been, and we're finally getting it done away with and now a bunch of people are crying because you can't carry a shorty AR or AK as a pistol anymore? What has the greater impact to our 2nd Amendment? Forcing registration of rifles between 26"-30" or not allowing people to CC a shorty AR or folding AK? I think there's your answer. Which affects the most gun owners?
Mighty nice of you to decide that some people life are useless, this attitude is why MI has such stupid laws. Lets call it the ME syndrome. I am wanting to not lose what I already have, and you are me me me wanting to take from others. Nice guy.

We shouldn't even need to have this discussion. We shouldn't have a more restrictive length restriction in MI. We should be allowed SBRs in Michigan. We should be allowed to carry whatever we want concealed if we have a CPL. But instead we're stuck with poorly constructed spaghetti laws that aren't well thought out.
Why not do this rather then taking away rights from people then?

*editing to add that I really hope the grandfather clause is put in pace to allow those with these already registered to continue to do so. Like all the rest of this I see that being a real picnic for citizens and LEO's to understand though.

(why not just allow any weapon to be registered for carry?)

Who made you robin hood, I mean you are saying that it is OK to take from one group that has to give to another that doesn't have.
If you don't want registration of an AK folder then get it legal to carry them prior to eliminating registration of all guns.

You do understand that they removed a right to carry a "scary gun" and blew smoke up your ass about eliminating registration, right? I would hate to think that you can not see that.

[Super Trucker]

You mean like the bill that would bring MI in line with Federal defintions and the rest of the states, thereby eliminating the MI pistol and no longer requiring the registering of a class of weapons that are currently required to be registered as a pistol?

Bronson

So you are cool with the elimination of a "scary gun" to be in line with federal definitions?
I thought you would be for people not losing rights they already have, very disappointing.

[..DETROIT..]

Originally I thought this bill was a good thing. My thinking was I could now bull-pup a rifle, or put on a folding stock shortening the OAL to under 30" but over 26". unless i'm wrong. Didn't really consider the other side of it.

[durus5995]

Wow if only more people were this fired up about HB 4009 & 4010. I wouldnt have to go to my local movie theater and count how many seats they have. :roll:

[DEVIL DOG]

Wow if only more people were this fired up about HB 4009 & 4010. I wouldnt have to go to my local movie theater and count how many seats they have. :roll:
+1000, WHAT HE SAID !!!!!

[Oaktree]

So would the AK under folder be considered a rifle instead of a pistol under this proposed bill?

[durus5995]

So would the AK under folder be considered a rifle instead of a pistol under this proposed bill?

As long as it has a 16 in barrel and with the stock folded is at least 26 inches long.

[Super Trucker]

So would the AK under folder be considered a rifle instead of a pistol under this proposed bill?


As long as it has a 16 in barrel and with the stock folded is at least 26 inches long.

As durus5995 said if it meets those measurments, then yes it would be a rifle and no longer would you be able to carry it loaded as you could previously do.

[Quaamik]

(why not just allow any weapon to be registered for carry?)

Why indeed? Why not allow consitutional carry (open or concealed with no permit)?

It's too much common sense and not enough buerocratic control thats why.

[Quaamik]

As to the rest:

I would argue you are doing the same thing - you want to compromise my rights so you can have extras. The Michigan law requiring registration of rifles between 26-30" is more restrictive than the federal law and other state's laws. Why should I face an extra length restriction (having to register) just so that a few people can carry AK folders as "pistols"?

Not t all. However, the law is already on the books and has been for many years. No one has been interested in eliminating registration for this type of firearm - until we could actually carry them and people began to do so. NOW the legislature wants to remove regstration for some guns so they can prohibit concealed carry of those same guns.

By definition, that is taking from one group (CPL holders). What group does it give anything to? Potential new purchasers. A p!$$ poor exchange if you ask me.



In fact, I would go so far as to say people with registered folders have been taking advantage of a loophole...correct me if I'm wrong here, but there is no law stating "folder rifle's can be registered and carried as pistols" (is there?). Instead, we have a law allowing for CC of pistols, and we have another law restricting rifles between 26-30" as pistols. Like many laws the impact and scope was poorly considered and very seriously doubt it would have ever been put into place had they known people would be driving around with loaded AK folders under their car seat as their "CC pistol."

Actually it was brought up in the legislature that people would be able to carry a mini-14 folder under the (then proposed) shall issue law. The legislators decided it wasn't an important enough issue to trade off registering those gun to avoid. They didn't thnk many would do it. Now they want to change things so people can't carry them. Why?

If registration is such a stupid idea (I think it is) then get rid of ALL registration. If registration is acceptable forpistols, but bad for short rifles then someone is going to have to explain the reasoning behind that. If registration is bad, but all we can get now is this so we want to go at it peicemeal, then why would we give up the ability to carry them? If they offered to remove the requirement to register pistols over a certain size or caliber, but with it emliminated the right to carry those pistols concealed, should we support that? Would you?



Registration of what are proper rifles is stupid, always has been, and we're finally getting it done away with and now a bunch of people are crying because you can't carry a shorty AR or AK as a pistol anymore? What has the greater impact to our 2nd Amendment? Forcing registration of rifles between 26"-30" or not allowing people to CC a shorty AR or folding AK? I think there's your answer. Which affects the most gun owners?

Which affects most gun owners:
1) the requirement to register a pistol?
2) the ability to carry one concealed with a CPL?

Its a given that more people own pistols (and have to register them in MI) than have CPLs (let alone actually carry under their CPL). So by your reasoning, if we could get rid of pistol registration - but the tradeoff was we could no longer carry concealed - that would be an acceptable trade. And anyone argueing against it would be one of the "people crying because you can't carry a .... pistol" and those people would be looking to compromise you right (to not register a gun).

looking at it that way, which has a greater impact on the RKBA?



We shouldn't even need to have this discussion. We shouldn't have a more restrictive length restriction in MI. We should be allowed SBRs in Michigan. We should be allowed to carry whatever we want concealed if we have a CPL. But instead we're stuck with poorly constructed spaghetti laws that aren't well thought out.

And this proposed horse trade is just another bit of spagetti added to the pile. Eliminate registration of these? Great! but still allow them to be carried. Otherwise a much better trade needs to be made - one worth the sacrifice to those who have been able to arry tese and want to continue.

[oddjob]

Looking at acquiring a new Keltec SUB 2000 purchase from out of state. Since it is into the new year, should this firearm be treated as a pistol or long gun by the Michigan FFL? 16" folded non-operating length and 16.1" barrel. This transaction would likely be completed before the 760-762 bills are voted upon by the House and signed by Gov. Rick.


Looking at a Keltec KSG 12 Gauge as well, with a 18.5" barrel and 26.1" overall length, so I don't think there is an issue with this shotgun.

[matt]

Looking at acquiring a new Keltec SUB 2000 purchase from out of state. Since it is into the new year, should this firearm be treated as a pistol or long gun by the Michigan FFL? 16" folded non-operating length and 16.1" barrel. This transaction would likely be completed before the 760-762 bills are voted upon by the House and signed by Gov. Rick.


Looking at a Keltec KSG 12 Gauge as well, with a 18.5" barrel and 26.1" overall length, so I don't think there is an issue with this shotgun.

I'm looking for a little clarification as well. I'm looking at buying a sub2000 from a private party, in state, currently registered as a pistol. One additional point of data is that the overall open length is 29.75" inches. Hoping for a little help here.

Thanks.

[durus5995]

I'm looking for a little clarification as well. I'm looking at buying a sub2000 from a private party, in state, currently registered as a pistol. One additional point of data is that the overall open length is 29.75" inches. Hoping for a little help here.

Thanks.

Michigan goes by what the rifle measures when it is closed. That being said I am pretty sure that the Sub 2000 needs to be registered as a pistol.

[Pistol Teacher]

..

[Divegeek]

If you buy that Sub2000 today, you would need to register it as a pistol. This bill has not passed and effects nothing. IF and when it passes, the Jan 1 date only applies for grandfathering purposes. Ie if you want to "carry" it using your CPL.

[markjason]

How can I order this?

[oddjob]

How can I order this?

What did you wish to order?

[LGer]

What is the proper way to measure a rifle length? I know that the stock must be folded but the rifle that I want to purchase is 25 1/2" if measured down the top. If I take this same rifle and stand it on the floor and measure to the tip it is 26" (the grip raises it up 1/2 inch). Can the length of the grip be included in the total length when folded? Thank you!

[Imshootin]

What is the proper way to measure a rifle length? I know that the stock must be folded but the rifle that I want to purchase is 25 1/2" if measured down the top. If I take this same rifle and stand it on the floor and measure to the tip it is 26" (the grip raises it up 1/2 inch). Can the length of the grip be included in the total length when folded? Thank you!

Yes.

16002

[LGer]

Perfect! Thank you sir!

[TheKid]

Have these bills become law yet? I'm building an AK kit with a folding stock so it will fall between 26" and 30" when folded. If not law I will need to register this as a pistol before I finish the build. Since it is after the "grandfathered" date in the bill what happens if this does become law in the future?

[Divegeek]

It has passed the senate, and is sitting in committee in the house. It still is not law.

[Dansjeep2000]

I sure hope this fails. If it dosen't I am damn glad I have a 12ga and a rifle that will be grandfathered in.

[leavitron]

Ugh. I tried to read this thread and make heads or tails of the changes and I guess I am not following. Let me state what I think I understand, and someone please correct me where I need it.

1) Currently, any rifle or shotgun who's over all length is between 26 and 30 inches is what is called a "Michigan pistol." MI requires registration of these, in clash with federal law which still considers them to be a rifle/shotgun. 26 inches is the magic number for the Feds.

2) One can legally concealed carry a registered Michigan pistol if it is registered with the state and one has a CPL.

3) With this law change, the state is switching to the federal 26 inch magic number which removes concealed carry for those 26-30" rifles/shotguns. This is what everyone is vigorously arguing about.

Hypothetical: Let's say that I have a rifle that fits the definition of MI pistol. I bought it in a cash sale from a family member so I have no receipt showing date of sale. I never registered it either out of ignorance of need or simply because I felt the law was wrong. If I simply wait for this to become law then I am in the clear, correct?

[Divegeek]

You are understanding the law correctly. The only thing you missed was the grandfather clause that continues to allow the concealed carry of "michigan pistols" if they were registered prior to Jan 1 2012.

As for you hypothetical...correct if someone had forgot to register a michigan pistol it would become a moot point if the law were to pass.

[leavitron]

You are understanding the law correctly. The only thing you missed was the grandfather clause that continues to allow the concealed carry of "michigan pistols" if they were registered prior to Jan 1 2012.

As for you hypothetical...correct if someone had forgot to register a michigan pistol it would become a moot point if the law were to pass.
Thank you. I wasn't sure what to say about the grandfather clause so I skipped it. I appreciate your looping it into your response. Now we have a nice, concise summary on one page.

Based on my understanding, I would rather see the state law come in line with federal law whether or not the grandfather clause is in there. In fact, I think I would rather do away with the grandfather clause, period, to keep things simpler and more uniform. If you get stopped and searched, then there has to be some sort of check/database in place to know whether or not you were grandfathered. Seems like additional bureaucratic overhead that would further lengthen the stop. No thanks. (And yes, I admit fully that my perspective is tied to the fact that I do not carry a MI pistol so removing the grandfather clause would not adversely affect me.)

[westcliffe01]

FYI: given concealed carry law, the database in question already exists and is already in use and will continue to be. Anyone carrying a MI pistol in pistol mode (loaded and ready to go - the whole point - must have a CPL and will have the weapon registered, so there is no change to the way the stop would be handled at all. When declaring to the LEO, you would also declare the MI pistol. From that point, you just have to hope the LEO understands this part of the law.

If you want any of these weapons, but don't have a CPL, all it requires is for your smith to install a lengthened flash hider which is permanently installed and the weapon is transformed into a rifle with the addition of a couple inches in length (most of the weapons that fit the definition are >28" OAL already).

I fail to see how the non CPL types are "inconvenienced" by this law.


If you get stopped and searched, then there has to be some sort of check/database in place to know whether or not you were grandfathered. Seems like additional bureaucratic overhead that would further lengthen the stop. No thanks. (And yes, I admit fully that my perspective is tied to the fact that I do not carry a MI pistol so removing the grandfather clause would not adversely affect me.)

[SADAacp]

FYI: given concealed carry law, the database in question already exists and is already in use and will continue to be. Anyone carrying a MI pistol in pistol mode (loaded and ready to go - the whole point - must have a CPL and will have the weapon registered, so there is no change to the way the stop would be handled at all. When declaring to the LEO, you would also declare the MI pistol. From that point, you just have to hope the LEO understands this part of the law.

If you want any of these weapons, but don't have a CPL, all it requires is for your smith to install a lengthened flash hider which is permanently installed and the weapon is transformed into a rifle with the addition of a couple inches in length (most of the weapons that fit the definition are >28" OAL already).

I fail to see how the non CPL types are "inconvenienced" by this law.

Why would you have to do that when a Michigan Pistol is defined having an OAL 26 to 30 inches (750.222)? Anything less than 26 inches would make them a SBS or SBR.

[westcliffe01]

I'm not sure I am understanding you.

My Golani for example is 29" long. So, if someone wanted one under current law and didn't want it classified as a MI pistol, they order it and have it shipped to their FFL who is also a smith. He removes the 2" long flash hider and screws on and pins (or silver solders) on a 3.25" long flash hider (they certainly exist). There you go. It is now a rifle, and does not need to be registered, nor require you to have a CPL.

You may not transport it loaded (just like any other rifle or shotgun). If at some later point you remove the flash hider or change it to a shorter one, you would be in violation. But why would you ? The extra 1.25" makes no difference in handling and yes, it does cost a little money. But then virtually every Golani out there will need some work anyway, so no loss in the grand scheme of things.


Why would you have to do that when a Michigan Pistol is defined having an OAL 26 to 30 inches (750.222)? Anything less than 26 inches would make them a SBS or SBR.

[RayMich]

<snip>

Based on my understanding, I would rather see the state law come in line with federal law whether or not the grandfather clause is in there. In fact, I think I would rather do away with the grandfather clause, period, to keep things simpler and more uniform. If you get stopped and searched, then there has to be some sort of check/database in place to know whether or not you were grandfathered. Seems like additional bureaucratic overhead that would further lengthen the stop. No thanks. (And yes, I admit fully that my perspective is tied to the fact that I do not carry a MI pistol so removing the grandfather clause would not adversely affect me.)So you are OK with others losing their legal right to carry a Michigan Pistol under the authority of their CPL, simply because it does not affect you.

Well thank you very much. Your line of thinking is that of the typical FUDD who thinks that their rights will not be infringed, only those who have different guns than yours will be affected. Dream on... If we don't stick together, eventually YOUR time is coming too.

I need to state that I do NOT currently own any Michigan Pistol and I do NOT currently Open Carry except while hunting. But I DO SUPPORT everyone's 2nd Amendment Rights even if it doesn't affect me directly at the moment.

We need to be VERY CAREFUL, because if we keep throwing everyone else under the bus, eventually there won't be anyone else to throw under the bus and it will be our turn to go under.

[Pyzik]

Only because just recently I have become effective by this, I am going to throw my 2 cents in.

I am in no way a FUDD. I am more on the sport/collecting the side of the firearms fence. However, I too want Michigan pistols gone. Bring it inline with the gov and then allow the carry of long arms with a CPL. Then do away with PFZs and registration.

Or, keep the MI pistol bologna if you like and just get rid of registration.

That's just me, flame me if you want.

[westcliffe01]

Just to be clear, the proposed changes DO NOT bring MI in line with the ATF definitions. ATF measures with the stock extended, MI with the stock folded or collapsed - so get your facts straight. If measured by federal standards, all our MI pistols are rifles, period.

But that makes no difference to the primary issue, which is the ability to carry a rifle (lets stop calling it a pistol for the moment) which is loaded in a vehicle or during deer season. There is no federal law against it. Many states permit it. Many states don't. Many states allow for varmint species to be hunted from a vehicle, day or night, with a centerfire rifle.

This stupid amendment will make virtually no difference to gun sales, the same people can still buy the same guns, all it affects is how they may legally be carried. People like you are soo eager to deny others options in protecting themselves. If this continues, we will soon be like California or DC.



Second, I framed my position from the POV of getting the state laws in harmony with the federal ones. That is how it should be, anyway.

[langenc]

How about we create laws that treat the car as a home extension and thus allows you to have loaded weapons in there.

problem solved.


DNR would never allow it!!

RayMich-and I thought I was the only one that didnt like registered guns. I know there are many who dont mind and like the new (couple yrs old) system over the old.
HITLER loved registration..

[Pyzik]

DNR would never allow it!!

RayMich-and I thought I was the only one that didnt like registered guns. I know there are many who dont mind and like the new (couple yrs old) system over the old.
HITLER loved registration..
This is my biggest peeve over the whole thing too. I already have to register my pistols, I don't want to have to register a rifle too. I don't really care to carry it in my car, I don't want to register it.

[SADAacp]

This is my biggest peeve over the whole thing too. I already have to register my pistols, I don't want to have to register a rifle too. I don't really care to carry it in my car, I don't want to register it.

How many do you plan to own where the registration of 1 or 2 is a huge inconvenience compared to the other pistols you were required to register? You may not care if you carry one in your car, but others might. What needs to be done, if aligning Michigan law with the Feds is so crucial, is to eliminate 0761, the grandfathering clause or allow those to opt in if they don't mind registering their Michigan Pistol.

[leavitron]

Just to be clear, the proposed changes DO NOT bring MI in line with the ATF definitions. ATF measures with the stock extended, MI with the stock folded or collapsed - so get your facts straight. If measured by federal standards, all our MI pistols are rifles, period.

But that makes no difference to the primary issue, which is the ability to carry a rifle (lets stop calling it a pistol for the moment) which is loaded in a vehicle or during deer season. There is no federal law against it. Many states permit it. Many states don't. Many states allow for varmint species to be hunted from a vehicle, day or night, with a centerfire rifle.

This stupid amendment will make virtually no difference to gun sales, the same people can still buy the same guns, all it affects is how they may legally be carried. People like you are soo eager to deny others options in protecting themselves. If this continues, we will soon be like California or DC.
Thank you for the correction. As I originally stated I was trying to get my head around this law because there was way too much vitriol and not enough facts being presented. Clearly I missed the distinguishing characteristic of MI pistol defined as "folded."

I don't understand why people would carry a loaded "rifle" in a vehicle. It's simply too unsafe from an accidental discharge POV. Can you seriously make a case that there is a reasonable percentage of the time where you only have a split second to get off a shot at a varmint, so you must have the rifle loaded?

[westcliffe01]

It is not necessary to carry the weapon loaded. However, just the ability to have an uncased weapon with the magazine inserted and no round in the chamber DOES make a great difference to response time. By law, if a rifle is uncased, it must be unloaded, taken down and not immediately accessible by the driver or passengers. That pretty much precludes its use for anything one is likely to encounter. Whether it be a brown bear, coyote or multiple bad guys. The same obviously applies to Shotguns.

I would not personally choose to drive around with a rifle loaded with a round in the chamber, but just remember that hundreds of thousands do it with pistols on a daily basis (carrying it on their person) with few accidents. In the intervening time since the law was written, many rifles have good safety features (like the savage Accutrigger) which prevents the firing pin from striking the primer unless the "guard" trigger is depressed.

The fact is that anyone who discharges such a weapon will be held accountable as they should. But being forbidden by the law to have a weapon in a state that permits it to be used for its intended purpose is essentially a 2nd amendment ban with "bear arms" replaced by "bear pistols if in possession of a CPL or PP when outside a vehicle and when not within a PFZ". Doesn't sound like what the founders intended...


I don't understand why people would carry a loaded "rifle" in a vehicle. It's simply too unsafe from an accidental discharge POV. Can you seriously make a case that there is a reasonable percentage of the time where you only have a split second to get off a shot at a varmint, so you must have the rifle loaded?

[leavitron]

stuff
Sorry sir but I don't follow your line of reasoning here.

1) A MI pistol shouldn't exist in the first place. It's a special classification that amounts to a terrible recovery from a terrible fumble. It is an issue and should be stricken from the law books, period.

2) Tactically, attempting to deploy a MI pistol for defensive measures is a terrible idea. You simply don't have the room in a vehicle to maneuver the firearm. (Even in my Suburban I would feel a lot more confident using my Glock 19 then trying to use my Mini-14.) If a car jacking, the perp is already most likely inside the sweep radius of the end of the barrel of a MI pistol anyway.

3) The idea of needing a MI pistol in a vehicle to defend against a bear or wolves is preposterous. You simply stay in your vehicle and drive away. There is no need to kill the animal(s) at all.

(Note: I am basing the bulk of my argument on the "in the vehicle" scenario because as I recall that is where most of the concern arises.)

[Dansjeep2000]

Just to be clear, the proposed changes DO NOT bring MI in line with the ATF definitions. ATF measures with the stock extended, MI with the stock folded or collapsed - so get your facts straight. If measured by federal standards, all our MI pistols are rifles, period.

But that makes no difference to the primary issue, which is the ability to carry a rifle (lets stop calling it a pistol for the moment) which is loaded in a vehicle or during deer season. There is no federal law against it. Many states permit it. Many states don't. Many states allow for varmint species to be hunted from a vehicle, day or night, with a centerfire rifle.

This stupid amendment will make virtually no difference to gun sales, the same people can still buy the same guns, all it affects is how they may legally be carried. People like you are soo eager to deny others options in protecting themselves. If this continues, we will soon be like California or DC.
:clap: Amen!!!

[Dansjeep2000]

Is this bill dead yet...............

[Diverdave]

I think the thread is.

[Pyzik]

Just to be clear, the proposed changes DO NOT bring MI in line with the ATF definitions. ATF measures with the stock extended, MI with the stock folded or collapsed - so get your facts straight. If measured by federal standards, all our MI pistols are rifles, period.

But that makes no difference to the primary issue, which is the ability to carry a rifle (lets stop calling it a pistol for the moment) which is loaded in a vehicle or during deer season. There is no federal law against it. Many states permit it. Many states don't. Many states allow for varmint species to be hunted from a vehicle, day or night, with a centerfire rifle.

This stupid amendment will make virtually no difference to gun sales, the same people can still buy the same guns, all it affects is how they may legally be carried. People like you are soo eager to deny others options in protecting themselves. If this continues, we will soon be like California or DC.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that this would bring MI inline with the gov.

So then this fixes nothing in my eyes and is un-needed. Do it right or don't do it at all.


How many do you plan to own where the registration of 1 or 2 is a huge inconvenience compared to the other pistols you were required to register? You may not care if you carry one in your car, but others might. What needs to be done, if aligning Michigan law with the Feds is so crucial, is to eliminate 0761, the grandfathering clause or allow those to opt in if they don't mind registering their Michigan Pistol.

I am not a pistol guy. I only own two and only plan on getting two more. I like long guns mostly. It's not just an inconvenience to me. It's the fact that the state is keeping tabs on yet another firearm, a rifle (that's what it is).

[Dansjeep2000]

I think the thread is.
Very true

[Will-IB-Ready]

I think the thread is.
That's up to you guys.
I cleaned up the AUP violations. Let's play nice.

[westcliffe01]

Strangely enough, law enforcement have beliefs contrary to yours and many deputies across the country DO deploy "Carbines" in various forms, after a few of the famous FBI shootouts where multiple agents died on the scene. They even have select fire (machine guns) and SBR's, something that we - the public - are apparently not allowed.

What YOU choose to do is entirely up to you, carry your bear spray for all I care. But you should not be influencing MY ability to choose how I wish to be prepared.

Your view is inconsistent with the intention of the Second amendment.


Sorry sir but I don't follow your line of reasoning here.

1) A MI pistol shouldn't exist in the first place. It's a special classification that amounts to a terrible recovery from a terrible fumble. It is an issue and should be stricken from the law books, period.

2) Tactically, attempting to deploy a MI pistol for defensive measures is a terrible idea. You simply don't have the room in a vehicle to maneuver the firearm. (Even in my Suburban I would feel a lot more confident using my Glock 19 then trying to use my Mini-14.) If a car jacking, the perp is already most likely inside the sweep radius of the end of the barrel of a MI pistol anyway.

3) The idea of needing a MI pistol in a vehicle to defend against a bear or wolves is preposterous. You simply stay in your vehicle and drive away. There is no need to kill the animal(s) at all.

(Note: I am basing the bulk of my argument on the "in the vehicle" scenario because as I recall that is where most of the concern arises.)

[westcliffe01]

Last point, if you are defending livestock, how do you suppose staying in the vehicle and driving away is going to work ? What if the vehicle is an ATV ? You going to be protected by "staying in" that ? As I have stated multiple times, but you apparently have not grasped, I am protecting sheep from predators. I am less concerned with me being attacked by coyotes and more concerned with actually killing the coyote, since that is the only way to guarantee that it is not back tonight or tomorrow. It doesn't sound like you have spent a day doing that job.



3) The idea of needing a MI pistol in a vehicle to defend against a bear or wolves is preposterous. You simply stay in your vehicle and drive away. There is no need to kill the animal(s) at all.

(Note: I am basing the bulk of my argument on the "in the vehicle" scenario because as I recall that is where most of the concern arises.)

[Dansjeep2000]

I honestly hope this bill fails, it is a step backwards IMHO. I just don’t get how some here can’t understand that passing this bill will further restrict our ability to carry a very good self defense option.

For those who only see it as a registration issue that doesn’t effect them look a it this way:

I propose a new law that states all handguns chambered in .45acp no longer require registration with the state, and the state is all for it, with one small catch. You can no longer carry any .45acp caliber handgun under the authority of a CPL.

Seem like a fair trade? I don’t think it would be just like giving up our right to carry MI Pistols isn’t.

One thing seems to hold true among everyone here, dump ALL registration. Lets push to kill this bill and get ALL handgun registration eliminated.

[8675309]

Thank you. I wasn't sure what to say about the grandfather clause so I skipped it. I appreciate your looping it into your response. Now we have a nice, concise summary on one page.

Based on my understanding, I would rather see the state law come in line with federal law whether or not the grandfather clause is in there. In fact, I think I would rather do away with the grandfather clause, period, to keep things simpler and more uniform. If you get stopped and searched, then there has to be some sort of check/database in place to know whether or not you were grandfathered. Seems like additional bureaucratic overhead that would further lengthen the stop. No thanks. (And yes, I admit fully that my perspective is tied to the fact that I do not carry a MI pistol so removing the grandfather clause would not adversely affect me.)

What a perfect argument...
"It doesn't affect me. So screw you."
What a selfish piece of work.

[TheQ]

What a perfect argument...
"It doesn't affect me. So screw you."
What a selfish piece of work.

Well -- welcome, first time poster.

[Imshootin]

Well -- welcome, first time poster.

Probably not. Did someone get the Ban Hammer yesterday?

[Dansjeep2000]

Probably not. Did someone get the Ban Hammer yesterday?
Who was banned?

[BANNED]

Who was banned?
Did you mean "Who is BANNED?"

[Dansjeep2000]

Did you mean "Who is BAANNED?"
No I was meaning was a memeber banned yesterday, and or is "8675309" someone else

[westcliffe01]

I think the poster is being misunderstood. Did anyone read what he said ?


What a perfect argument...
"It doesn't affect me. So screw you."
What a selfish piece of work.

[leavitron]

Ah, nothing like a break from the action to clear one's head...

I'll be man enough to admit that I was banned for a week. I'll also apologize to everyone here for losing my cool with Ray.

I've taken the time to go back to my original posts looking to understand the current law and what this would change. I wanted to make sure that I hadn't somehow missed something or lost track of what was being argued. Here is my understanding as a recap:

1) "MI pistol" is a unique definition that as far as I can tell does not exist in any other state. It defines any rifle from 26" to 30" in folded length as a pistol. This flies in the face of the federal definition which is extended and only cares about 26" or less which is designed as short barreled by the Feds. SB's are legal, they just require a tax stamp.

2) One can legally carry a MI pistol if one has a valid CPL.

3) These laws effectively remove the MI pistol classification and the ability to concealed carry those firearms. However, they do provide a grandfather clause to those who already have an MI pistol registered. Those already registered will be allowed to continue to carry.

To even further summarize: MI pistol goes away. Concealed carry goes away for future reference, but is allowed for those already registered.

So far, I don't see what the problem is. Especially with the grandfather clause.

The way I see it MI pistol is a designation that never should have existed. The state never should have been allowed to preempt the Federal definition. As such the ability to concealed carry a MI pistol should never have existed. Thus I don't see this as the restriction of an existing right but the leveling of the playing field.

Now, what I have not addressed because I do not understand is the keeping of a loaded rifle in a passenger compartment. I skimmed all three bills and don't see where this change is located. If someone could help I would appreciate it.


Just to be clear, the proposed changes DO NOT bring MI in line with the ATF definitions. ATF measures with the stock extended, MI with the stock folded or collapsed - so get your facts straight. If measured by federal standards, all our MI pistols are rifles, period.
Okay, this part I still do not get. I don't see anything in these bills stating either way - either keeping the definition or dumping it. The only thing I see is a revision where everything that said 30" before now says 26". Folded or not, it shouldn't matter. If your shorter than the new 26" folded the odds are you are SB regardless and need a Federal tax stamp. I would like to see some genuine examples of firearms that are shorter than 26" folded and do not fall under Federal SB guidelines.

I'm going to throw out an example. Please correct my example if I do not understand this.

I have a Mini-14 with a folding wire frame stock. It is 26" long folded. Right now that's an MI pistol. These laws become enacted it is no longer an MI pistol but a rifle by both state and Fed guidelines. So for such a firearm (which is very typical of the MI pistol case) there are no issues from a purely existential perspective.

Now if you switch to a perspective where we are discussing storage in a vehicle then I can see where perspective would change. Sticking with my Mini-14 or your standard AK for that matter... Neither is well suited to scopes. Neither is highly accurate with iron sights. So neither is going to be carried for the hunting reasons mentioned such as varmits, wolves, etc. You'r not going to have a good chance of hitting anything. Switching to a carbine length AR and I see the point. Match grade heavy barrel, good optics, and you're going to have a fine weapon for taking out nuisances. Include the normal adjustable stock and you could easily fall into current MI pistol range. (A valid counter argument could be made that one should not be hunting with anything less than a 20" barrel, easily putting one outside the restrictions of a MI pistol. But this isn't about what is proper, this about infringing on liberty.)

I also understand that as-is if the firearm is uncased then the mags must be elsewhere, no round in the chamber, etc. I can see where that is a valid argument for looking for a change. I'll gladly concede that having a mag loaded dramatically decreases response time. For having a round chambered, I'm not so keen. It doesn't take long to charge an AR, cycle a bolt, or cycle a lever-action. So for the "long gun in vehicle" argument I'm willing to agree that some concession needs to be made.

Now switching gears to defensive measures...



Strangely enough, law enforcement have beliefs contrary to yours and many deputies across the country DO deploy "Carbines" in various forms, after a few of the famous FBI shootouts where multiple agents died on the scene. They even have select fire (machine guns) and SBR's, something that we - the public - are apparently not allowed.

What YOU choose to do is entirely up to you, carry your bear spray for all I care. But you should not be influencing MY ability to choose how I wish to be prepared.

Your view is inconsistent with the intention of the Second amendment.
I think you misunderstood the point. (I hope so, because the alternative is falling victim to Hollywood thinking and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.)

In context, my comments about deploying long guns was in relation to carrying them in a vehicle and using them while still in the vehicle. Sure it happens in a rare "Wildest Police Videos" but those are real exceptions. When LEOs "deploy" the long guns they have in their vehicles they take the long gun out of the vehicle and use the long gun out of the vehicle. They don't routinely fire the long gun while still sitting in their vehicle. It's simply not practical. You're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary, however.

Further, the point was made by at least one person wanting to defend his trucker buddies who would carry a MI pistol to defend themselves when in urban areas. Is there a realistic need for 30 rounds in an AR? If there is, you are in the wrong occupation in the wrong place. I highly doubt it's the equivalent of the 'stan tribal regions in downtown Detroit. So the argument for the necessity of MI pistols as an inner-city self defense mechanism fall flat on their face.

That's not to say there isn't an argument for preservation of all liberty at all costs. But remember, I feel that MI pistol is a special right that never should have existed in the first place. So I'm not going to defend it in really any light. Assuming that MI pistol never existed what form of defense would these people have to resort to? The same thing as everyone in every other state - handgun. So to me it amounts to whining about a special right.

[leavitron]

Last point, if you are defending livestock, how do you suppose staying in the vehicle and driving away is going to work ? What if the vehicle is an ATV ? You going to be protected by "staying in" that ? As I have stated multiple times, but you apparently have not grasped, I am protecting sheep from predators. I am less concerned with me being attacked by coyotes and more concerned with actually killing the coyote, since that is the only way to guarantee that it is not back tonight or tomorrow. It doesn't sound like you have spent a day doing that job.
Woops, missed this one.

You're right. I've never been a farmer. I've never taken care of livestock. The scenario that was painted before that I read was not about defending livestock. Therefore, I didn't address it. (So by extension no, I did not see you mention that you were protecting sheep.)

I have to be honest. I don't understand what concern you have with regards to "actually killing the coyote." Please elaborate.



One thing seems to hold true among everyone here, dump ALL registration. Lets push to kill this bill and get ALL handgun registration eliminated.
This is easy to agree with!

[leavitron]

What a perfect argument...
"It doesn't affect me. So screw you."
What a selfish piece of work.
This guy and RayMich seem to have said almost the exact same thing to me. Curious, this is.

[Pyzik]

...<snip>
Okay, this part I still do not get. I don't see anything in these bills stating either way - either keeping the definition or dumping it. The only thing I see is a revision where everything that said 30" before now says 26". Folded or not, it shouldn't matter. If your shorter than the new 26" folded the odds are you are SB regardless and need a Federal tax stamp. I would like to see some genuine examples of firearms that are shorter than 26" folded and do not fall under Federal SB guidelines.
</snip>...

Glad to see you back.
Just to give you an example...
I have a Saiga AK that without a stock is 26.5" with a 16.25" barrel. If I cut the stock tang off the receiver to install a folding stock with an internal receiver block it would put me right under 26" with the stock folded (the way the .gov measures). It would be a rifle under federal law and a SBR under MI law.

[leavitron]

Glad to see you back.
Just to give you an example...
I have a Saiga AK that without a stock is 26.5" with a 16.25" barrel. If I cut the stock tang off the receiver to install a folding stock with an internal receiver block it would put me right under 26" with the stock folded (the way the .gov measures). It would be a rifle under federal law and a SBR under MI law.
(Thank you)

If I am following you correctly, you've just shown where there is another difference between MI and the Feds. MI defines SBRs differently than the Feds, or is that just because MI measures folded, period, instead of open? I was under the impression that folded measuring was only for MI pistol.

[SADAacp]

(Thank you)

If I am following you correctly, you've just shown where there is another difference between MI and the Feds. MI defines SBRs differently than the Feds, or is that just because MI measures folded, period, instead of open? I was under the impression that folded measuring was only for MI pistol.

This is correct.

.gov: Michigan

[Pyzik]

This is correct.

.gov: Michigan
Oops. Thank you to both of you for correcting me. I thought the SBR was measured closed as well in MI.

[Dansjeep2000]

Ah, nothing like a break from the action to clear one's head...

I'll be man enough to admit that I was banned for a week. I'll also apologize to everyone here for losing my cool with Ray.

I've taken the time to go back to my original posts looking to understand the current law and what this would change. I wanted to make sure that I hadn't somehow missed something or lost track of what was being argued. Here is my understanding as a recap:

1) "MI pistol" is a unique definition that as far as I can tell does not exist in any other state. It defines any rifle from 26" to 30" in folded length as a pistol. This flies in the face of the federal definition which is extended and only cares about 26" or less which is designed as short barreled by the Feds. SB's are legal, they just require a tax stamp.

SBR's are not legal in Michigan regaurdless of tax stamp Michigan does not allow them.

2) One can legally carry a MI pistol if one has a valid CPL.

3) These laws effectively remove the MI pistol classification and the ability to concealed carry those firearms. However, they do provide a grandfather clause to those who already have an MI pistol registered. Those already registered will be allowed to continue to carry.

To even further summarize: MI pistol goes away. Concealed carry goes away for future reference, but is allowed for those already registered.

So far, I don't see what the problem is. Especially with the grandfather clause.
Someone who does not currently own one can no longer get one IE: rights being restricted

The way I see it MI pistol is a designation that never should have existed. The state never should have been allowed to preempt the Federal definition. As such the ability to concealed carry a MI pistol should never have existed. Thus I don't see this as the restriction of an existing right but the leveling of the playing field.

There are many legalities that differ from the Feds to the State. 18 vs 21 to buy a regular handgun or the fact that the Feds say SBR/SBS are legal but Michigan says no.

Now, what I have not addressed because I do not understand is the keeping of a loaded rifle in a passenger compartment. I skimmed all three bills and don't see where this change is located. If someone could help I would appreciate it.

The only legal way to have a "rifle" loaded in you vehicle is if its a "MI Pistol"

Okay, this part I still do not get. I don't see anything in these bills stating either way - either keeping the definition or dumping it. The only thing I see is a revision where everything that said 30" before now says 26". Folded or not, it shouldn't matter. If your shorter than the new 26" folded the odds are you are SB regardless and need a Federal tax stamp. I would like to see some genuine examples of firearms that are shorter than 26" folded and do not fall under Federal SB guidelines.

Under 26" is not really possable in Michigan because SBR's are not legal, this change is only about 26-30"

I'm going to throw out an example. Please correct my example if I do not understand this.

I have a Mini-14 with a folding wire frame stock. It is 26" long folded. Right now that's an MI pistol. These laws become enacted it is no longer an MI pistol but a rifle by both state and Fed guidelines. So for such a firearm (which is very typical of the MI pistol case) there are no issues from a purely existential perspective.

Now if you switch to a perspective where we are discussing storage in a vehicle then I can see where perspective would change. Sticking with my Mini-14 or your standard AK for that matter... Neither is well suited to scopes. Neither is highly accurate with iron sights. So neither is going to be carried for the hunting reasons mentioned such as varmits, wolves, etc. You'r not going to have a good chance of hitting anything. Switching to a carbine length AR and I see the point. Match grade heavy barrel, good optics, and you're going to have a fine weapon for taking out nuisances. Include the normal adjustable stock and you could easily fall into current MI pistol range. (A valid counter argument could be made that one should not be hunting with anything less than a 20" barrel, easily putting one outside the restrictions of a MI pistol. But this isn't about what is proper, this about infringing on liberty.)

I would disagree with your assessment of what a Mini-14 or Mini-30 can do. IMHO the Mini-14 is a very good varmint gun I have one and use it for this very purpose. I also have MANY rifles under 20" that I use for hunting. However you are right its not about hunting its about Liberty

I also understand that as-is if the firearm is uncased then the mags must be elsewhere, no round in the chamber, etc. I can see where that is a valid argument for looking for a change. I'll gladly concede that having a mag loaded dramatically decreases response time. For having a round chambered, I'm not so keen. It doesn't take long to charge an AR, cycle a bolt, or cycle a lever-action. So for the "long gun in vehicle" argument I'm willing to agree that some concession needs to be made.

Do you carry your carry gun with one in the chamber? We also are not just talking chambered we are talking no mag in the gun.

Now switching gears to defensive measures...



I think you misunderstood the point. (I hope so, because the alternative is falling victim to Hollywood thinking and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.)

In context, my comments about deploying long guns was in relation to carrying them in a vehicle and using them while still in the vehicle. Sure it happens in a rare "Wildest Police Videos" but those are real exceptions. When LEOs "deploy" the long guns they have in their vehicles they take the long gun out of the vehicle and use the long gun out of the vehicle. They don't routinely fire the long gun while still sitting in their vehicle. It's simply not practical. You're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary, however.

Further, the point was made by at least one person wanting to defend his trucker buddies who would carry a MI pistol to defend themselves when in urban areas. Is there a realistic need for 30 rounds in an AR? If there is, you are in the wrong occupation in the wrong place. I highly doubt it's the equivalent of the 'stan tribal regions in downtown Detroit. So the argument for the necessity of MI pistols as an inner-city self defense mechanism fall flat on their face.

That's not to say there isn't an argument for preservation of all liberty at all costs. But remember, I feel that MI pistol is a special right that never should have existed in the first place. So I'm not going to defend it in really any light. Assuming that MI pistol never existed what form of defense would these people have to resort to? The same thing as everyone in every other state - handgun. So to me it amounts to whining about a special right.
You answerd your own question there. As far as this "loophole" being bad cause it dosen't fit what the feds say, why do we in Michigan care what the Feds say? Again they also say you have to be 21 to buy a handgun should we change that too?


My thoughts are in Red

[leavitron]

This is correct.

.gov: Michigan
Thank you!

[westcliffe01]

The question of rifle transportation is now covered by DNR law, clever move...
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141_37706-31579--,00.html
Transporting Firearms, Crossbows, and Bows and Arrows
These rules apply whether your vehicle is parked, stopped, moving or is on private or public property. Firearms must be unloaded in the barrel, and all arrows must be in a quiver when a hunter is afield outside the legal hunting hours.

At all times when carried in or on a motor vehicle, including snowmobiles:
Rifles, shotguns, muzzleloading and other firearms must be unloaded in both barrel and magazine and enclosed in a case or carried in the trunk of a vehicle.
Crossbows, slingshots, and bows and arrows must be enclosed in a case or unstrung or carried in the trunk of a vehicle.


At all times, when carried in or on an off-road vehicle (ORV):
Rifles, shotguns, muzzleloading and other firearms must be unloaded in both barrel and magazine and enclosed in a case or equipped with and made inoperative by a manufactured keylocked trigger-housing mechanism.
Crossbows, slingshots, and bows and arrows must be enclosed in a case or unstrung.



At all times, when carried in or on a motor-propelled boat or sailboat:
Rifles, shotguns, muzzleloading and other firearms must be unloaded in both barrel and magazine when the motor is operating or the boat is under sail.
Firearms may not be loaded until the forward momentum of the boat has ceased.

[BANNED]

The question of rifle transportation is now covered by DNR law, clever move...
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10366_37141_37706-31579--,00.html
Transporting Firearms, Crossbows, and Bows and Arrows
These rules apply whether your vehicle is parked, stopped, moving or is on private or public property. Firearms must be unloaded in the barrel, and all arrows must be in a quiver when a hunter is afield outside the legal hunting hours.

At all times when carried in or on a motor vehicle, including snowmobiles:
Rifles, shotguns, muzzleloading and other firearms must be unloaded in both barrel and magazine and enclosed in a case or carried in the trunk of a vehicle.
Crossbows, slingshots, and bows and arrows must be enclosed in a case or unstrung or carried in the trunk of a vehicle.


At all times, when carried in or on an off-road vehicle (ORV):
Rifles, shotguns, muzzleloading and other firearms must be unloaded in both barrel and magazine and enclosed in a case or equipped with and made inoperative by a manufactured keylocked trigger-housing mechanism.
Crossbows, slingshots, and bows and arrows must be enclosed in a case or unstrung.



At all times, when carried in or on a motor-propelled boat or sailboat:
Rifles, shotguns, muzzleloading and other firearms must be unloaded in both barrel and magazine when the motor is operating or the boat is under sail.
Firearms may not be loaded until the forward momentum of the boat has ceased.


But remember that a firearm less than 30" and greater than 26" is defined as a pistol. And with the CPL, it is lawful to possess that pistol in the vehicle loaded.

[westcliffe01]

I know, but certain members seem to not understand what a hindrance the law is to people who need to protect themselves and their livestock on their private property.
If the law was written to exclude private property, it would have been better (but still unconstitutional) but the restriction of transportation of rifles on private property is simply ridiculous.
The only lawful way to transport a loaded rifle is when walking or riding a horse (and even that is disallowed during deer season after daylight hours). And by loaded I mean loaded magazine or loaded magazine with round in the chamber. The deer season restriction allows a loaded magazine, but no round in the chamber "when afield" and of course in zone 3 rifles are banned, period. For the 2 week long deer season. Outside of that season you basically have to have a small game license or be target shooting, so I will spend the $15 to cover myself with the small game license every time.




But remember that a firearm less than 30" and greater than 26" is defined as a pistol. And with the CPL, it is lawful to possess that pistol in the vehicle loaded.

[leavitron]

Dansjeep2000:

First off thank you for taking the time to reply at length. I appreciate being corrected because it makes me more informed so that I can then better inform others.


You answerd your own question there. As far as this "loophole" being bad cause it dosen't fit what the feds say, why do we in Michigan care what the Feds say? Again they also say you have to be 21 to buy a handgun should we change that too?
Honestly you are not going to like my answer.

I prefer gun laws to be uniform. I don't like having to double and triple check just because I am going to another state. I feel that gun laws should be standardized across all 50 states to the most lenient standards possible. By that I mean:

1) The ATF is sent back to its original roll - collecting tax stamps. No enforcement, that's what the FBI is for.

2) National definitions for firearms. SBR, SBS, folded or unfolded, 26 or 30 inches. All this is uniform.

3) National concealed carry. Something very close to what is known as Constitutional Carry. I think we should have to pass a non-invasive background check for at least mental health. Being re-checked every 4-5 years is debatable. But I want a national standard so that I don't have to do things differently when I travel. Oh and NY City Port Authority can die in a fire as far as I am concerned.

4) Most PFZ's should go away. The facts are there - people who have a CPL are safer, more responsible citizens anyway.

Will people in MI lose the "right" to privately purchase a pistol if they are under 21? Yes. But fundamentally I don't feel this "right" should have ever existed. Just like I don't feel that MI had a right to outlaw SBRs and SBSs. It's a trade off. It's compromise.

I understand that many don't want to compromise an inch. I respect that. Let me ask you folks this. Do you find having to look up other states' laws a hassle when you travel? If not, what burden becomes enough that you do consider it a hassle? (I'm not asking to be a jerk. I'm asking because I consider the current situation a hassle myself.)


I know, but certain members seem to not understand what a hindrance the law is to people who need to protect themselves and their livestock on their private property.
If the law was written to exclude private property, it would have been better (but still unconstitutional) but the restriction of transportation of rifles on private property is simply ridiculous.
The only lawful way to transport a loaded rifle is when walking or riding a horse (and even that is disallowed during deer season after daylight hours). And by loaded I mean loaded magazine or loaded magazine with round in the chamber. The deer season restriction allows a loaded magazine, but no round in the chamber "when afield" and of course in zone 3 rifles are banned, period. For the 2 week long deer season. Outside of that season you basically have to have a small game license or be target shooting, so I will spend the $15 to cover myself with the small game license every time.
Seeing you mention the change by the DNR and then say this above makes it a lot clearer for me now.

Here is what I have issue with:
1) Not being able to have a mag in the rifle. I'm sure this is to appease gun grabbers - "think of the children." Puh-lease.

2) Private property. It's freakin private property. Whatever happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Oh, that's right. Our government officials have been wiping their behinds with that for some time now. :bash:

(I'm even having some trouble with the whole private property during deer season thing. It's still private property. And call me crazy, but isn't almost everyone complaining about deer overpopulation in the state?

:fur3:

[Roundballer]

Don't take what the DNR says and accept it as the "law". They can not make law. They are allowed to "promulgate rules" for hunting ONLY (as far as firearms goes). They are also specifically restricted from creating "rule" that applies to the carrying of pistols.

Even what was "quoted" above has a flaw in it. Muzzle Loaders do not need to be unloaded "in barrel" (they don't have magazines), to be considered "unloaded".

[westcliffe01]

I didn't quote the whole paragraph regarding muzzle loaders, but basically they need to have the primer removed, then they are considered "unloaded". The point is, I seriously doubt we want to keep muzzle loaders for the sake of protection. And even they need to be cased and "unloaded" when in or on any form of vehicle.

It appears that in the eyes of our government, if one carries a rifle afield (out your home), you are "hunting", period. Otherwise, the DNR law would not stand.

[Roundballer]

That is just the point. What the DNR has listed there is just a paraphrase of the real law. Here is another example: The DNR requires a 450' (150 yd) "safety zone" around "occupied" structures. That is a "hunting rule", it has no application for land owners, target practice, or any other use of a firearm.

The DNR is specifically restricted from making any rule regarding pistols. References to law need to be to the "Actual Law" not the DNR's or MSP's interpolation or paraphrasing of the law.

[westcliffe01]

The section below does not mention anything regarding game law. Is that what the passages in the DNR law are based on ? Yet like the ban on suppressors, it takes revising multiple laws to permit one to actually use the suppressor for anything other than shooting at paper.

It is hard to imagine that these restrictions have been in place for 30 years now.

750.227c
Transporting or possessing loaded firearm in or upon vehicle; violation as misdemeanor; penalty; applicability to person violating MCL 312.10(1)(g).
Sec. 227c.
(1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a sailboat or a motor vehicle, aircraft, motorboat, or any other vehicle propelled by mechanical means, a firearm, other than a pistol, which is loaded.
(2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.
(3) This section does not apply to a person who violates section 10(1)(g) of chapter II of Act No. 286 of the Public Acts of 1929, as amended, being section 312.10 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
History: Add. 1981, Act 103, ***. Mar. 31, 1982.

750.227d Transporting or possessing firearm in or upon motor vehicle or self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel; conditions; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.
Sec. 227d.
(1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a motor vehicle or any self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel a firearm, other than a pistol, unless the firearm is unloaded and is 1 or more of the following:
(a) Taken down.
(b) Enclosed in a case.
(c) Carried in the trunk of the vehicle.
(d) Inaccessible from the interior of the vehicle.
(2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.
History: Add. 1981, Act 103, ***. Mar. 31, 1982.

[Roundballer]

Yes, that is what the DNR is paraphrasing. But read both closely, in the actual laws there are things like "(1) Except as otherwise permitted by law,", which the DNR often leaves out. Words mean things.

What this leads us back around to is that if it can't be found here: "MCL Basic Search" (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28hkjwbgvjnox1oe55nxlj2s55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=MCLBasicSearch) it is not "law". Even the DNR's actual laws and LIMITATIONS are listed there.

That is the problem with using the DNR's or MSP's web sites for information. You are just getting some "clerks" interpolation of the actual law.

This thread started on a proposed change to the laws that define the length of a rifle, making those changes will put a unique class of firearm into the laws that will prevent them from being carried in a vehicle loaded. It will not make those specific firearms more available to a greater number of the population, there is no restriction on that now. It does limit the broadness of what can be carried loaded and used for personal defense. I see no up side to redefining this, only losses.

[westcliffe01]

I think the majority of people simply do not understand that a simple thing like driving your golf cart across your own land (regardless of whether 5 acres, 50 or 5000 acres) with an uncased rifle next to you is a misdemeanor offense. Punishable by up to 2 years !!! Yet it can be done while on a DNR range and is no crime, and they just had the law changed to give themselves that exemption after "practicing" without the exemption for years...

Or as little as placing your rifle case on the tailgate of your pickup, then opening the case to remove the rifle Ding ding ding, YOUR BUSTED !

Then in Arizona, this is perfectly legal: AT NIGHT with a centerfire rifle...
http://www.predatormastersforums.com/nightchair1.jpg
http://www.predatormastersforums.com/night2.jpg
http://www.predatormastersforums.com/night4.jpg

[Roundballer]

Nope, they are in violation of law carrying shotguns in golf carts on DNR ranges. Legislation was introduced, but is has not gone anywhere yet.

Carrying a "long arm", uncased, accessible to the occupants of the vehicle is illegal in the state.
http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=164092

HB-5322 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2012-HB-5322)

I wish it wasn't so, but it is what it is.

Just another reason not to trust or believe the DNR. They don't follow what is law.

[westcliffe01]

Well, I have my MI pistol, have been trying to get it to work. Once those Century folks get their hands on it, they seem to trash anything that was worthy of salvage...

List so far:
Barrel (was parkerized internally)
Bolt #1 (had been ground on back of locking lugs, would not head space with new barrel.
Bolt #2 turned out some fool had ground the face that engages the bullet to headspace, with the result that the geometry vs the extractor was changed, so that one would not eject the shells from the action.
Bolt #3 I got lucky, turned out to be a brand new South African bolt, just the rear had to be opened up to take the Israeli spring loaded firing pin (a worth while safety feature in a semi auto gun)
Bolt carrier#1 was dremeled where it was not needed by an assembler who didn't know how to assemble the gun, so the bolt carrier tries to "escape" the guide rails when at the back of the ejection stroke. Tends to hang up in that position...
Folding stock #1 was toast after 30 years in the jungle
Bolt carrier 2 will be a new AK47 carrier, fitted with the original gas piston. Charging handle will be horizontal on right hand side like on an AK.

I'm afraid that the Century version of the Galil is not for the faint at heart... Maybe I should just have gotten myself an AK74 instead...

http://keithandseija.com/pictures/Cerakote-Golani-2.JPG
http://keithandseija.com/pictures/Cerakote-Golani-3.JPG

[Quaamik]

(Thank you)

If I am following you correctly, you've just shown where there is another difference between MI and the Feds. MI defines SBRs differently than the Feds, or is that just because MI measures folded, period, instead of open? I was under the impression that folded measuring was only for MI pistol.

It applies to both the definition of a "Mi Pistol" and the definition of an SBR. Bear with me because this is confusing.

A "MI Pistol", as currently defined, is a rifle or shotgun that measures les than 30 inches but not less than 26 inches in it's shortest configuration. If it has a folding stock, the stock must be folded when measuring.

A rifle or shotgun is considered an SBR (or SBS) by Michigan if it is less than 26 inches in it's shortest configuration. If it has a folding stock, the stock must be folded when measuring.

Under Federal law, an SBR or SBS is a rifle or shotgun that measures under 26 inches. If it has a folding stock, it is measured with the stock open.

Federal law defines rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches, or a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches as an SBR or SBS. The state accepts the federal definition here.

Note that the discrepancy in how to measure is not in Michigan law. it is from an AG opinion from the 70s or early 80s.

An exampe of how it screws things up is the Uzi carbine. The Uzi carbine with a folding stock and a 16 1/2" barrel is a rifle under federal law. Michigan views it as an SBR however. Michigan requires it have a 19 inch barrel if the folding stock is in place, but it can be sold with a 16 inch barrel with the fixed stock in place. Only michigan requires this as far as I know. The proposed change would not address this.

[Roundballer]

It applies to both the definition of a "Mi Pistol" and the definition of an SBR. Bear with me because this is confusing.

A "MI Pistol", as currently defined, is a rifle or shotgun that measures les than 30 inches but not less than 26 inches in it's shortest operable configuration. If it has a folding stock, the stock must be folded when measuring.

A rifle or shotgun is considered an SBR (or SBS) by Michigan if it is less than 26 inches in it's shortest operable configuration. If it has a folding stock, the stock must be folded when measuring.

Under Federal law, an SBR or SBS is a rifle or shotgun that measures under 26 inches. If it has a folding stock, it is measured with the stock open.

Federal law defines rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches, or a shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches as an SBR or SBS. The state accepts the federal definition here.

Note that the discrepancy in how to measure is not in Michigan law. it is from an AG opinion from the 70s or early 80s.

<snip>
I am sure that this was just an oversight, but there is an important word missing.

[Quaamik]

Thanks, that was an oversight that makes a big difference.

[leavitron]

Wow - I was kinda surprised that no one commented on my desire to see all gun laws unified at the federal level. I dunno if y'all think I am that crazy or what?!?



Don't take what the DNR says and accept it as the "law". They can not make law. They are allowed to "promulgate rules" for hunting ONLY (as far as firearms goes). They are also specifically restricted from creating "rule" that applies to the carrying of pistols.

Even what was "quoted" above has a flaw in it. Muzzle Loaders do not need to be unloaded "in barrel" (they don't have magazines), to be considered "unloaded".
The DNR may not technically have law-making authority but on the surface it appears that they act like they do. That is where the rub is, I would imagine. If they have the right to pull your license for any appearance of wrongdoing then they have the ability to have that authority go to their heads and abuse said authority.



That is just the point. What the DNR has listed there is just a paraphrase of the real law. Here is another example: The DNR requires a 450' (150 yd) "safety zone" around "occupied" structures. That is a "hunting rule", it has no application for land owners, target practice, or any other use of a firearm.
Said safe zone is pointless. All rifles have ranges in excess of 150 yards. Sounds like a good case of throwing something out there just to pander to the hoplophobes.


Note that the discrepancy in how to measure is not in Michigan law. it is from an AG opinion from the 70s or early 80s.
Thank you for the correction/clarification. Clearly this is what we need to fix, then. An AG's opinion is just that. If it is not made into law then it doesn't count.

[leavitron]

I realize this discussion is a bit stale but I wanted to throw out some new ideas based on some teaching I sat in on this weekend.

I sat in on a "refresher" of the CPL class I took a year ago. It's based on the NRA "Personal Protection Inside the Home" but doesn't really use the book at all. It's definitely quite customized. They even show two video clips from the NRA PP Outside the Home" course. Same instructors as last year. I am friends with the NRA instructor (and acquainted with the legal instructor) so I was basically "auditing" the class but was told to speak up if I thought of things that they had missed.

One item jumped out at me that I don't recall hearing them talk about last year. In listening in depth, it made sense. And to me it's an effective counter for some of the (heated) argument that went on in this thread. So I am tossing it into this thread to see if it sparks some new discussion.

Basically, the legal instructor (retired police officer) said that you carry as if you weren't carrying. You don't use it as a reason to go where you would otherwise not go.

It seemed to me that one of the big arguments against doing away with MI pistol is that it strips certain people of the ability to carry in dangerous situations. That tells me that those people are in fact carrying in order to go where they would otherwise not. The reference was to Detroit in this thread. Simply put - if carrying makes you bolder then you are carrying for the wrong reason anyway. As such I cannot agree with you carrying and MI pistol definition should have no relevance for you.

Another thing that popped into my head was the statement that it was truck drivers that needed to be able to carry MI pistol to defend themselves in Detroit. (I looked back through the thread but it must have been in the posts that were deleted. Pretty sure RayMich said this.) The issue with that is if anyone is driving a truck under CDL then they are under Federal Law that states no firearms allowed. We discussed this on Sat too and pretty sure there is no preemption for that one. So they cannot carry any pistol, MI pistol or not. So that entire angle of discussion is effectively shut down. Now if they wish to carry anyway that's their choice. It just makes them a criminal and I have no pity for them or reason to defend them.

I'm curious to see if people agree or disagree with me.

[donald150]

I realize this discussion is a bit stale but I wanted to throw out some new ideas based on some teaching I sat in on this weekend.

I sat in on a "refresher" of the CPL class I took a year ago. It's based on the NRA "Personal Protection Inside the Home" but doesn't really use the book at all. It's definitely quite customized. They even show two video clips from the NRA PP Outside the Home" course. Same instructors as last year. I am friends with the NRA instructor (and acquainted with the legal instructor) so I was basically "auditing" the class but was told to speak up if I thought of things that they had missed.

One item jumped out at me that I don't recall hearing them talk about last year. In listening in depth, it made sense. And to me it's an effective counter for some of the (heated) argument that went on in this thread. So I am tossing it into this thread to see if it sparks some new discussion.

Basically, the legal instructor (retired police officer) said that you carry as if you weren't carrying. You don't use it as a reason to go where you would otherwise not go.

It seemed to me that one of the big arguments against doing away with MI pistol is that it strips certain people of the ability to carry in dangerous situations. That tells me that those people are in fact carrying in order to go where they would otherwise not. The reference was to Detroit in this thread. Simply put - if carrying makes you bolder then you are carrying for the wrong reason anyway. As such I cannot agree with you carrying and MI pistol definition should have no relevance for you.

Another thing that popped into my head was the statement that it was truck drivers that needed to be able to carry MI pistol to defend themselves in Detroit. (I looked back through the thread but it must have been in the posts that were deleted. Pretty sure RayMich said this.) The issue with that is if anyone is driving a truck under CDL then they are under Federal Law that states no firearms allowed. We discussed this on Sat too and pretty sure there is no preemption for that one. So they cannot carry any pistol, MI pistol or not. So that entire angle of discussion is effectively shut down. Now if they wish to carry anyway that's their choice. It just makes them a criminal and I have no pity for them or reason to defend them.

I'm curious to see if people agree or disagree with me.


You are pretty much wrong in all areas.

Some people live or work in more dangerous areas like Flint and Detroit and would like to at least have the same level of protection as the police.

As for trucks and commercial vehicles, STOP perpetuating that same LIE. I challenge YOU to prove your statement that there is s Federal law against carry in a truck!

[Leader]

I realize this discussion is a bit stale but I wanted to throw out some new ideas based on some teaching I sat in on this weekend.

Snip........................................

Basically, the legal instructor (retired police officer) said that you carry as if you weren't carrying. You don't use it as a reason to go where you would otherwise not go.

Snip.....................................

Another thing that popped into my head was the statement that it was truck drivers that needed to be able to carry MI pistol to defend themselves in Detroit. (I looked back through the thread but it must have been in the posts that were deleted. Pretty sure RayMich said this.) The issue with that is if anyone is driving a truck under CDL then they are under Federal Law that states no firearms allowed. We discussed this on Sat too and pretty sure there is no preemption for that one. So they cannot carry any pistol, MI pistol or not. So that entire angle of discussion is effectively shut down. Now if they wish to carry anyway that's their choice. It just makes them a criminal and I have no pity for them or reason to defend them.

I'm curious to see if people agree or disagree with me.

There is not now nor ever has been such a law, rule, or regulation.

No, I can not produce a law that says you CAN carry in a CMV.
No, I can not produce a law that says there is no law against it.

If you still believe this to be true, please research and show the rest of us where such a law exist.

[donald150]

@ leavitron

Btw: if you are going to " audit" a class, make sure you know your stuff or you are no help to the instructor.

Now go tell your friend that he needs a cop or lawyer with more facts and less opinion.

And my challenge still stands......Let's see that proof you have.

[67390FE]

@ leavitron

There is no federal law prohibiting guns in commercial vehicles, and before you dredge up the old argument that it is illegal due to Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171- 180), see this response from the DOT

http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.ebdc7a8a7e39f2e55cf2031050248a0c/?vgnextoid=555bc0515d544110VgnVCM1000009ed07898RCR D&vgnextchannel=aa8cd3c1af814110VgnVCM1000009ed07898 RCRD&vgnextfmt=print

[shurhouse]

...It seemed to me that one of the big arguments against doing away with MI pistol is that it strips certain people of the ability to carry in dangerous situations...

I don't see where S.B. 760,761 or 762 would strip certain people's ability to carry in dangerous situations...

Did I miss something?????

[donald150]

@ leavitron

There is no federal law prohibiting guns in commercial vehicles, and before you dredge up the old argument that it is illegal due to Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171- 180), see this response from the DOT

http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/portal/site/PHMSA/menuitem.ebdc7a8a7e39f2e55cf2031050248a0c/?vgnextoid=555bc0515d544110VgnVCM1000009ed07898RCR D&vgnextchannel=aa8cd3c1af814110VgnVCM1000009ed07898 RCRD&vgnextfmt=print


THANKS for that link.

You cant really "prove" something is not illegal except by the lack of finding a law but that letter is as close as you are going to get.

[Dansjeep2000]

Isn't this bill dead by now?

[67390FE]

THANKS for that link.

You cant really "prove" something is not illegal except by the lack of finding a law but that letter is as close as you are going to get.


This bit is good too but I would like to find it with a .gov addy.

https://ntl.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/120/kw/firearms/session/L3RpbWUvMTI5OTgyNDU3Ny9zaWQvdk9uTipEb2s%3D

[leavitron]

You are pretty much wrong in all areas.

Some people live or work in more dangerous areas like Flint and Detroit and would like to at least have the same level of protection as the police.

As for trucks and commercial vehicles, STOP perpetuating that same LIE. I challenge YOU to prove your statement that there is s Federal law against carry in a truck!
(I can see where this is going to go.) Really? So I'm wrong about my age? I'm wrong about name? I'm wrong about my date of birth?

Ok, that made my point. When you use superlatives, you sound stupid. So don't use them. Say exactly what you mean. If you are unable to be precise enough then take more time to think about it, or simply don't say anything at all.

Because of how you lead into your response, I cannot answer anything else you said without losing my cool. So I am not going to answer you further.

[leavitron]

There is not now nor ever has been such a law, rule, or regulation.

No, I can not produce a law that says you CAN carry in a CMV.
No, I can not produce a law that says there is no law against it.

If you still believe this to be true, please research and show the rest of us where such a law exist.
I was repeating what a truck driver in the class told us. Here is what I can find, though:


TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS

Sec. 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or
regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person
who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting,
shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a
firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully
possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully
possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the
firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being
transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the
passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in
the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's
compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked
container other than the glove compartment or console.

The wording is obtuse but it appears that this law specifies that the gun has to be unloaded and locked up. That sounds like the opposite of "can carry" to me.

Note: This is generalized transportation. Not, specific to DOT or Federal Motor Carrier Regs.

[donald150]

I was repeating what a truck driver in the class told us. Here is what I can find, though:



The wording is obtuse but it appears that this law specifies that the gun has to be unloaded and locked up. That sounds like the opposite of "can carry" to me.

Note: This is generalized transportation. Not, specific to DOT or Federal Motor Carrier Regs.
So you still can't back up your rather bold statement below that people carrying in commercial vehicles are criminals?
To use your words,I guess "that entire angle of discussion is effectively shut down".









Another thing that popped into my head was the statement that it was truck drivers that needed to be able to carry MI pistol to defend themselves in Detroit. (I looked back through the thread but it must have been in the posts that were deleted. Pretty sure RayMich said this.) The issue with that is if anyone is driving a truck under CDL then they are under Federal Law that states no firearms allowed. We discussed this on Sat too and pretty sure there is no preemption for that one. So they cannot carry any pistol, MI pistol or not. So that entire angle of discussion is effectively shut down. Now if they wish to carry anyway that's their choice. It just makes them a criminal and I have no pity for them or reason to defend them.

[shurhouse]

I was repeating what a truck driver in the class told us.

There's your first mistake.



Note: This is generalized transportation. Not, specific to DOT or Federal Motor Carrier Regs.

You start the thread talking about MI pistols and how they can't be in a truck when the driver has a CDL and then you post something from the fed's that has to do with interstate trucking and then you change to " generalized transportation, not specific to DOT or MC". Seems to me your grasping for straws.

[Leader]

There's your first mistake.




You start the thread talking about MI pistols and how they can't be in a truck when the driver has a CDL and then you post something from the fed's that has to do with interstate trucking and then you change to " generalized transportation, not specific to DOT or MC". Seems to me your grasping for straws.

No .. He admitted it had nothing to do with DOT and it doesn't apply.
I guess he's still looking for the one outlawing guns in CMV's.

[TheKid]

Isn't this bill dead by now?

I'd like to know this too, is this still a live bill?

[snakebyte]

Well, I've never heard of anything other than possibly company policy saying you can't carry a gun in a commercial vehicle. That would make me a criminal for working on an armored truck. It's a commercial vehicle, and I'm required to carry a gun...

[Dansjeep2000]

Unless your company says no, you can carry (with CPL) in a CMV (in states that honor your CPL and NO Canada). There is NO law making it illegal.

I say this as someone with 12 years in the transportation industry, I was the Safety Director at my previous employer and have taken several classes on all FMCSA and DOT regulations. I am currently a Dispatcher for another company (damn economy).

The only reason most truck drivers can't carry is due to the company handbook. Not the law

[leavitron]

No .. He admitted it had nothing to do with DOT and it doesn't apply.
I guess he's still looking for the one outlawing guns in CMV's.
Yes I admitted that it wasn't DOT specific. However, I didn't say that it didn't apply. Law Enforcement/DoJ are known for twisting things to suit their needs. Everyone here can see how what I quoted can be twisted to be said to explicitly apply to big truck drivers. It's not a stretch.

I actually went home after hurriedly posting what I posted before. I haven't even given it another thought since. Been too busy. But so far, I cannot find anything directly specific.


Unless your company says no, you can carry (with CPL) in a CMV (in states that honor your CPL and NO Canada). There is NO law making it illegal.

I say this as someone with 12 years in the transportation industry, I was the Safety Director at my previous employer and have taken several classes on all FMCSA and DOT regulations. I am currently a Dispatcher for another company (damn economy).

The only reason most truck drivers can't carry is due to the company handbook. Not the law
Thanks for posting DJ2k. Granted your information is anecdotal and for that matter contrasted with that presented in the class I attended last Saturday. As it stands, though, it appears that what you are saying is correct.

[leavitron]

So you still can't back up your rather bold statement below that people carrying in commercial vehicles are criminals?
To use your words,I guess "that entire angle of discussion is effectively shut down".
Donald. I've already stated that I cannot respond to you because of how you first responded to me. If you wish to change your demeanor then you'll get a response from me.


U.S. Army/Iraq Veteran
NRA Member & NRA Certified Instructor
Member: www.migunrack.com
Member: Oakland County Sportsman's Club

My friend, the 20 year NRA Instructor, has said on more than one occasion that having the label NRA Instructor doesn't mean squat. They're ridiculously low credentials. It's what you do that shows your qualifications. I know him and don't know you. So all I can say that his actions do speak volumes as to the quality of his character and instruction. So before you go and disparage someone, I suggest you know the person and walk a mile in their shoes.

We had not 1 but 2 LEOs instructing the class. The second, who is currently an active officer and Reserve Marine with two tours in the 'stan under his belt, didn't "correct" the first on any of the topics discussed. We also had Neal from Condition Zero here and he didn't have any arguments. So you're welcome to disrespectfully spout off all you want without an ounce of knowledge about these people, but since I know them all I am going to trust them over you whom I don't know at all. I would expect the reverse as well - you don't know me so don't owe me any special respect or trust other than that as a fellow gun owner and 2nd Amendment defender.

I just suggest you consider what brings us together and allow that to temper your words with moderation instead of the negativity you have used with me thus far.

[leavitron]

Also, I'd like to point out that most everyone has missed the main point of my post and not responded to it. The primary point was commenting on "carrying like you are not carrying."

Should people rely on "metal courage" like they do on "liquid courage?" I don't feel it is the correct behavior. Any other thoughts?

[snakebyte]

I look at it like carrying a knife. It's a tool. I've carried it since middle school, and haven't felt braver because of it. You may feel more confident, but to go looking for trouble would be a mistake.
What if you can't get your gun? Anything can happen, maybe it won't operate properly. Don't put yourself in a situation that you can't handle without it, but be ready in case you have no choice.

[67390FE]

Also, I'd like to point out that most everyone has missed the main point of my post and not responded to it. The primary point was commenting on "carrying like you are not carrying."

Should people rely on "metal courage" like they do on "liquid courage?" I don't feel it is the correct behavior. Any other thoughts?

I can only speak for myself when I state that where I go is not dictated by what I am carrying. There are simply places that people sometimes have to frequent that are dangerous. It has nothing to do with "courage" and more to do with necessity.

As for the Federal rules for CDLs, I listed two links from the USDOT that state specifically that it is a state or local issue. No such prohibition on possession of firearms from the USDOT exist.

[donald150]

Donald. I've already stated that I cannot respond to you because of how you first responded to me. If you wish to change your demeanor then you'll get a response from me.



My friend, the 20 year NRA Instructor, has said on more than one occasion that having the label NRA Instructor doesn't mean squat. They're ridiculously low credentials. It's what you do that shows your qualifications. I know him and don't know you. So all I can say that his actions do speak volumes as to the quality of his character and instruction. So before you go and disparage someone, I suggest you know the person and walk a mile in their shoes.

We had not 1 but 2 LEOs instructing the class. The second, who is currently an active officer and Reserve Marine with two tours in the 'stan under his belt, didn't "correct" the first on any of the topics discussed. We also had Neal from Condition Zero here and he didn't have any arguments. So you're welcome to disrespectfully spout off all you want without an ounce of knowledge about these people, but since I know them all I am going to trust them over you whom I don't know at all. I would expect the reverse as well - you don't know me so don't owe me any special respect or trust other than that as a fellow gun owner and 2nd Amendment defender.

I just suggest you consider what brings us together and allow that to temper your words with moderation instead of the negativity you have used with me thus far.

I really could not care any less.

You chose you believe someone who has NO proof that is your business. :slap:


And for someone that "cannot respond" to me, you sure keep doing it.

[westcliffe01]

Leavitron: It is clear that you, personally, are against black scary guns and probably supported the AWB. Otherwise, you have no reason to get involved in what law abiding citizens should choose to carry for their personal defense, particularly if they are discreet about it (the main problem most people have with open carry).

I have carried loaded select fire weapons in public during a time of civil unrest (I was wearing a uniform at the time) and it made people feel a lot safer going about their business. When I am no longer in uniform but the same person as before, the mere concept that I would choose to carry a rifle in my vehicle as a general purpose defensive weapon should now be criminalized ? This is nothing more than the monopolization of power by the state and federal government and nothing good can come of it.

The courts have already determined that the police have no obligation to protect you, and with law enforcement and fire staff being the first to be chopped when cutting back local government budgets (instead of executive compensation and retirement perks), we know what that means when you run into the trouble in the wrong part of town.

I see that current legislation intends to expand concealed carry, while at the same time restricting what one is allowed to conceal... Nice.


Also, I'd like to point out that most everyone has missed the main point of my post and not responded to it. The primary point was commenting on "carrying like you are not carrying."

Should people rely on "metal courage" like they do on "liquid courage?" I don't feel it is the correct behavior. Any other thoughts?

[leavitron]

I look at it like carrying a knife. It's a tool. I've carried it since middle school, and haven't felt braver because of it. You may feel more confident, but to go looking for trouble would be a mistake.
What if you can't get your gun? Anything can happen, maybe it won't operate properly. Don't put yourself in a situation that you can't handle without it, but be ready in case you have no choice.

I can only speak for myself when I state that where I go is not dictated by what I am carrying. There are simply places that people sometimes have to frequent that are dangerous. It has nothing to do with "courage" and more to do with necessity.

As for the Federal rules for CDLs, I listed two links from the USDOT that state specifically that it is a state or local issue. No such prohibition on possession of firearms from the USDOT exist.
Thank you. These are the sorts of responses I was looking for.

[leavitron]

I really could not care any less.
Well, at least you can get some grammar correct. :roll:


You chose you believe someone who has NO proof that is your business. :slap:
Well, you have proven your inability to comprehend what you read. I said I trust them as I have reason to do so. I don't have any reason to trust you, some anonymous Joe on the Internet. The difference is apparently too subtle for someone like you to discern.

You do realize that your Internet "slap" is IRL assault? Had you done so in real life and I would have been able to restrain myself from a physical response that you would be arrested for assault. And you want to command respect and be a firearms instructor when you act like an ITG? Boy am I happy to be on the other side of the state from you. Your character is being seriously questioned at this point.


And for someone that "cannot respond" to me, you sure keep doing it.
Again, your inability to comprehend what you read is made apparent. I said I would not answer your "challenge" and I have not.

[leavitron]

Leavitron: It is clear that you, personally, are against black scary guns and probably supported the AWB. Otherwise, you have no reason to get involved in what law abiding citizens should choose to carry for their personal defense, particularly if they are discreet about it (the main problem most people have with open carry).
Wow. We've had pleasant exchanges thus far. To see you so mis-characterize me is well, astounding. Put differently, you couldn't be any more full of crap if you were a week old port-a-john.

I own a scary black gun. I have my next scary black gun purchase eyeballed, just waiting for the wallet to come into compliance.

So no, you're dead wrong.


I have carried loaded select fire weapons in public during a time of civil unrest (I was wearing a uniform at the time) and it made people feel a lot safer going about their business.
You're not the only one. So what? (Oh, wait. That's right. Your puffing out your chest because of the false premise above.)


The courts have already determined that the police have no obligation to protect you, and with law enforcement and fire staff being the first to be chopped when cutting back local government budgets (instead of executive compensation and retirement perks), we know what that means when you run into the trouble in the wrong part of town.
Again, you're not saying anything new (to me) here. What is your point?


I see that current legislation intends to expand concealed carry, while at the same time restricting what one is allowed to conceal... Nice.
You could have left out all the other crap that was based on nothing more than a bad read and just said this. It would have saved both of us some time.

Because of the fact that MI pistol is based on an AG's opinion and nothing else I have no problem with the repeal of the MI pistol designation. What everyone here who attributes this as malice or some weird desire to strip people of their rights is failing to recognize is that it is part of a bigger picture I have. One that you don't see because you don't bother to ask. It's much safer to assume and pin bad stuff on the guy you don't agree with than to actually seek what you might have in common with him.

Grow the hell up!

Communication is a basic life skill. If you cannot have even a decent level of communication here where you are safely hidden behind a computer screen then how pitiful is your existence in real life?

I wish to see MI drop the MI pistol designation as part of a BIGGER PLAN. Get that through your thick skulls. Not out of a desire to control but out of a desire to big picture simplify things. I want to see every. single. law. scrapped and a complete move to modified Constitutional carry. No PFZs. No MI pistols. Just pass a simple background check that amounts to a psych eval and you are good to go. Period. Without exceptions.

Stick that in your "Leavitron wants to take our freedoms" pipe and smoke it.

[donald150]

I think I know where PGA has been hiding. :naughty:

[chewy]

I think guns are dangerous and I hope they ban all gun ownership!

[donald150]

You do realize that your Internet "slap" is IRL assault? Had you done so in real life and I would have been able to restrain myself from a physical response that you would be arrested for assault. And you want to command respect and be a firearms instructor when you act like an ITG? Boy am I happy to be on the other side of the state from you. Your character is being seriously questioned at this point.


Again, your inability to comprehend what you read is made apparent. I said I would not answer your "challenge" and I have not.

Really? So if I post this, http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sex020.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) I guess we just had IRL sex?

I guess I am done with you because you have no facts as I knew you would not.

BTW: I won't be calling you in the morning. ;)

[Leader]

I think guns are dangerous and I hope they ban all gun ownership!

I KNOW guns are dangerous & think we should ban vehicles on public hyways.

[leavitron]

I think I know where PGA has been hiding. :naughty:
Nope. I just joined what less than two months ago. I found this site linked from somewhere else as a good place to sell a handgun in MI. I've never posted here under another alias. Besides, I'm rather certain that would a violation of the Guidelines to post under a new alias when banned.

[leavitron]

Really? So if I post this, http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sex020.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) I guess we just had IRL sex?

I guess I am done with you because you have no facts as I knew you would not.

BTW: I won't be calling you in the morning. ;)
You really aren't that bright, are you? I said if that had been a real life slap it would have been assault. The same as your BDSM thingie there.

I already said to someone else that I couldn't find anything that directly substantiated the "no carry for big truck drivers" statement. I just didn't direct it to you because of your bully behavior. I honestly don't see how you can be a successful instructor for how you act. Unless you're nothing but an ITG which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

That's probably all you are. And the only "combat" you're probably ever seen in real life is to be on the receiving end of spit wads and wedgies. So keep acting all tough. It doesn't scare anyone and only shows your true colors.

[donald150]

You really aren't that bright, are you? I said if that had been a real life slap it would have been assault. The same as your BDSM thingie there.

I already said to someone else that I couldn't find anything that directly substantiated the "no carry for big truck drivers" statement. I just didn't direct it to you because of your bully behavior. I honestly don't see how you can be a successful instructor for how you act. Unless you're nothing but an ITG which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

That's probably all you are. And the only "combat" you're probably ever seen in real life is to be on the receiving end of spit wads and wedgies. So keep acting all tough. It doesn't scare anyone and only shows your true colors.
Once again, statements without facts but your good at that.

[westcliffe01]

So tell us, what was the purpose for buying your scary black gun ? Was it to be kept at home and "transported" to the range exclusively (Chicago style law) ?

How does "simplifying" the law help anyone when it removes the last possibility which permits carry of a long gun on a vehicle ? None of us need a permit or CCW to "transport" a long gun now, but somehow I don't think that "transportation" of a long gun was what the founders intended for the second amendment.

Since you apparently don't see the need for a long gun as a defensive weapon, you should best apply that thinking to yourself and you can voluntarily abstain from using it all you like.


Wow. We've had pleasant exchanges thus far. To see you so mis-characterize me is well, astounding. Put differently, you couldn't be any more full of crap if you were a week old port-a-john.

I own a scary black gun. I have my next scary black gun purchase eyeballed, just waiting for the wallet to come into compliance.

So no, you're dead wrong.

[shurhouse]

Just to help confirm what has already been stated:

I spoke to an officer with the Michigan State Police Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division - ie: the guys in the blue trucks that stop the semi's-

It is not against the law for a person with a CPL to have a pistol in a commercial vehicle.

I would suggest that because he pulls over commercial vehicles for a living, what he says is indeed correct.

[snakebyte]

Just to help confirm what has already been stated:

I spoke to an officer with the Michigan State Police Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division - ie: the guys in the blue trucks that stop the semi's-

It is not against the law for a person with a CPL to have a pistol in a commercial vehicle.

I would suggest that because he pulls over commercial vehicles for a living, what he says is indeed correct.
It's been my experience that the motor carrier officers of the msp are extremely knowledgeable of the laws in that area. Lol, been schooled by them the hard way more than once.

[durus5995]

Just to help confirm what has already been stated:

I spoke to an officer with the Michigan State Police Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division - ie: the guys in the blue trucks that stop the semi's-

It is not against the law for a person with a CPL to have a pistol in a commercial vehicle.

I would suggest that because he pulls over commercial vehicles for a living, what he says is indeed correct.

Yeah are no DOT regulations that say you can not carry. However, in some of the books that are written by truck driving schools and academies it states that you can not carry. But, they really dont have the force of law.

[Leader]

Yeah are no DOT regulations that say you can not carry. However, in some of the books that are written by truck driving schools and academies it states that you can not carry. But, they really dont have the force of law.

In the last 40 years sense I started driving a truck, nobody has been able to show me one of those books. I have asked more times then you can imagine and it has NEVER happened.
(of course I started before truck driving schools or CDL's)
Will YOU please point me to ONE of them?

[durus5995]

In the last 40 years sense I started driving a truck, nobody has been able to show me one of those books. I have asked more times then you can imagine and it has NEVER happened.
(of course I started before truck driving schools or CDL's)
Will YOU please point me to ONE of them?

I was just parroting what I heard on Gun Talk a while back. I do remember that Tom Gresham was talking about some sort of booklet with a green cover. I know one of the guys that I work with said he had one when he was learning to be an over the road guy a few years ago I will check around.

[Leader]

I was just parroting what I heard on Gun Talk a while back. I do remember that Tom Gresham was talking about some sort of booklet with a green cover. I know one of the guys that I work with said he had one when he was learning to be an over the road guy a few years ago I will check around.

Nope... It's not in that "little green book".

[Tallbear]

Let's get back on topic...... "Pistol definition".

[leavitron]

So tell us, what was the purpose for buying your scary black gun ? Was it to be kept at home and "transported" to the range exclusively (Chicago style law) ?
Not hardly. I bought it for defense. It will be at the ready when the stuff hits the fan. Someone(s) comes and tries to avail themselves of my stockpile and/or harm my family, they get shot. It's that simple. 5.56 is cheaper than 9mm anyway.


How does "simplifying" the law help anyone when it removes the last possibility which permits carry of a long gun on a vehicle ? None of us need a permit or CCW to "transport" a long gun now, but somehow I don't think that "transportation" of a long gun was what the founders intended for the second amendment.
I guess you missed the part about throwing out all other laws. Throwing out all other laws includes those that pertain to long guns. Which happens to have the effect of removing any restrictions on long guns in your vehicle.

Lo and behold that is what I have said several times in this thread. I am not against having long guns in the cab of your truck or on your ATV. I don'teven care if you have a full magazine, one loaded in the chamber, and the safety on. I think you're an idiot for having one in the chamber, but hey, that's just my opinion.

Now take your tempest in a teacup and chill the hell out.


Since you apparently don't see the need for a long gun as a defensive weapon, you should best apply that thinking to yourself and you can voluntarily abstain from using it all you like.
You're wrong again. See above.

[leavitron]

Just to help confirm what has already been stated:

I spoke to an officer with the Michigan State Police Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division - ie: the guys in the blue trucks that stop the semi's-

It is not against the law for a person with a CPL to have a pistol in a commercial vehicle.

I would suggest that because he pulls over commercial vehicles for a living, what he says is indeed correct.
Thanks for that info. Granted, LEO's can be as wrong as anyone else but it helps.

And I'll gladly stand corrected.

[leavitron]

Let's get back on topic...... "Pistol definition".
Sorry about that. Didn't read the thread through to the end before replying. :-o

[westcliffe01]

Seems I was right, that you don't mind transporting it cased in your car. Since it sure has zero defensive purpose when its unloaded in its case. You had better hope that the only place you need it will be when your at home. Around my parts, home is probably th safest place I am likely to be and where all my means are available to me. Quite different than when you are on the road. Good luck with getting those other laws repealed, by the way.


Not hardly. I bought it for defense. It will be at the ready when the stuff hits the fan. Someone(s) comes and tries to avail themselves of my stockpile and/or harm my family, they get shot. It's that simple. 5.56 is cheaper than 9mm anyway. .

[SADAacp]

Seems I was right, that you don't mind transporting it cased in your car. Since it sure has zero defensive purpose when its unloaded in its case. You had better hope that the only place you need it will be when your at home. Around my parts, home is probably th safest place I am likely to be and where all my means are available to me. Quite different than when you are on the road. Good luck with getting those other laws repealed, by the way.

The repeal of 750.227d and even 750.227c will never happen. The best we, or at least a few of us, can hope for is that the SB's are never passed.

[Tallbear]

Standing Committee Meeting

Judiciary, Rep. John Walsh, Chair

Date: 05/17/2012

Time: 10:30 AM

Place: 521 House Office Building, Lansing, MI

Agenda:
HB 5225 (Opsommer) Weapons; firearms; certain procedures for purchase and possession of pistols; revise.

HB 5282 (Rendon) Weapons; other; transportation of firearms for lawful purpose; expand.

SB 760 (Green) Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify.

SB 761 (Kowall) Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify.

SB 762 (Robertson) Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify.

[RDak]

Standing Committee Meeting

Judiciary, Rep. John Walsh, Chair

Date: 05/17/2012

Time: 10:30 AM

Place: 521 House Office Building, Lansing, MI

Agenda:
HB 5225 (Opsommer) Weapons; firearms; certain procedures for purchase and possession of pistols; revise.

HB 5282 (Rendon) Weapons; other; transportation of firearms for lawful purpose; expand.

SB 760 (Green) Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify.

SB 761 (Kowall) Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify.

SB 762 (Robertson) Weapons; firearms; definition of pistol; modify.

Thanks for the update.

In case the pistol definition changes to Federal measurements, I am going to play it safe and get another shotgun registered as a pistol by putting a pistol grip on it.

I hope we keep the MI pistol definition in place but it looks like it might not go that way?