PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on repealing the SBR/SBS ban



GarrettJ
03-13-2012, 02:21 PM
I have read the text of the law banning SBRs & SBSs in MI and I have found at one time where the exception for law enforcement is. There does not appear to be any way to legalize SBRs and SBSs here other than to change the law. I don't know if there has ever been much of an effort to have this done. I don't know if anyone has ever had a good argument to approach a state congressman with.

It occurs to me that if a law enforcement agency in the state wanted to evaluate a short barreled rifle or shotgun, they would either have to just buy one and try it out, or they would have to travel out of state to where a dealer / distributor could legally possess the demonstration guns. This represents an extra expense on the taxpayers, where in most other states a dealer / salesman would typically foot the bill to provide the demonstration in hopes of making a sale.

While the governor currently has a "made in Michigan" initiative where local governments and businesses are encouraged to source products and services from other MI-based businesses, it is currently impossible for an LE agency to comply, as MI-based dealers / distributors cannot legally possess the products.

If we could find a friendly sheriff of police chief, we may be able to get a "government official" to approach a state congressman with a request to sponsor a bill. Coming from an official will carry a lot more weight than if an individual were to make the request. (it shouldn't be that way, but it is).

To put it another way, it would be nice if the state's LE agencies could source short-barreled duty weapons from an in-state supplier. And if we are changing the law, it could be pointed out that there are already extensive federal restrictions on the ownership of said firearms. With that in mind, it would be feasible to simply drop the MI prohibition, and let the Federal regs keep them out of the hands of the unwashed masses.

Anyone on good terms with their local sheriff or police chief?

mmissile
03-21-2012, 02:42 PM
SBR's are my must-have item.:(

trapdoorman
04-04-2012, 01:22 AM
I don't ever see law enforcement officials getting behind something like this for the same reason many of the CLEO's refuse to sign the form 4's.

I also doubt there is much demand among law enforcement for a SBR demonstration when they can simply buy the same thing as a select fire machine gun and have a lot more fun. Ammo budgets aren't a problem when the taxpayer foots the bill.

DP425
04-04-2012, 01:51 AM
Ammo budgets aren't a problem when the taxpayer foots the bill.


I'd like to see you argue that to some of the departments in the state having just that problem.

GarrettJ
04-04-2012, 04:16 AM
I also doubt there is much demand among law enforcement for a SBR demonstration when they can simply buy the same thing as a select fire machine gun and have a lot more fun...
That is true. But it's all in how you approach it. Most departments don't want to issue machine guns to their rank & file officers. Pretty much all of the departments I know of that have received the "free" M16s on loan from the federal government have converted them to semi-auto only.

Keep in mind, police departments don't get guns because they're "a lot more fun". It's a deadly serious tool.

And yes - a MI dealer can get some post-sample machine guns to do an "SBR" demo. It's difficult to find a full-auto pump shotgun for an SBS demo, though.

Like I said, it's all in how you approach the dept.

Dansjeep2000
04-04-2012, 04:51 PM
I think its a good idea, would any of our in house LEO's care to chime in?

mustangcobratim
04-05-2012, 09:19 AM
so to clarify since i live in mi. i cannot convert my saiga 12 to a sbr? or do i just have to have a form 4 filled out and processed then i can cut it down? thanks for the help on this

rjrivero
04-05-2012, 09:38 AM
so to clarify since i live in mi. i cannot convert my saiga 12 to a sbr? or do i just have to have a form 4 filled out and processed then i can cut it down? thanks for the help on this
You live in Michigan, you can not have a Short Barrel Rifle. You can not have a short barrel shotgun. You may not file a form 4 or Form 1 for a sbr/sbs.

(Form 4 is to transfer an NFA Firearm, Form 1 is an application to MAKE an NFA Firearm)

Regardless, SBS/SBR's are NOT allowed in Michigan under current law.

mustangcobratim
04-06-2012, 09:58 AM
You live in Michigan, you can not have a Short Barrel Rifle. You can not have a short barrel shotgun. You may not file a form 4 or Form 1 for a sbr/sbs.

(Form 4 is to transfer an NFA Firearm, Form 1 is an application to MAKE an NFA Firearm)

Regardless, SBS/SBR's are NOT allowed in Michigan under current law.


thank you for the clarification on this. man that sucks!

Chopstix Kid
04-09-2012, 09:09 PM
Not that it's a good argument. In fact, it could back-fire, but I often think about the case of the "Michigan Pistol" in that any long gun with barrel over 16" with OAL >26" and <30" must be registered as a pistol and as such can be carried with a CPL.

An SL8 to G36K conversion with 16.5" barrel falls just under 30" with the stock folded and with CPL can be concealed. Put a 100-rnd C-beta mag on it and strap that bad boy up in the trunk of your car. It IS a pistol afterall. So why would I want to SBR it and restrict myself from the freedom of carry?

Consider pistols...
An AR-pistol or an MP5K clone with shoulder rig is cats-meow of concealed carry. Why ruin all that with SBR registration?

Like I said, the argument could back-fire and instead of enjoying SBR's, we'd end up with pistol mag and weight limits and would be pinning the stocks on all our long guns, but it does make you wonder WTF.

OneShot91
04-12-2012, 03:46 AM
because with a Pistol registered rifle it CANNOT ever be re registered as a rifle. It can also NOT EVER BE FITTED WITH A FORWARD GRIP. which is very nice for short rifles. of which i have shot down in tennessee. To the why ruin it? because you are very very limited as to what you can modify on that rifle because it has to be registered as a pistol and must be looked at as such. and i do not think a stock is allowed on pistols... not sure though

Roundballer
04-12-2012, 12:42 PM
You have an awful lot of FAIL in this post. You are confusing definitions, Federal law, and State law. Major misinformation.

because with a Pistol registered rifle it CANNOT ever be re registered as a rifle.
The concept of a Rifle or a Shotgun "registered as a pistol" is purely a Michigan thing. By Federal law, it is a long arm. AND, Just how do you "register as a rifle", neither the Feds, or Michigan register firearms that are considered long arms, under their laws.

There is also a case of firearms that are supplied as a kit. One of the TC Contenders comes to mind. This firearm is a single receiver, with both pistol grips and shoulder stock, and a couple of barrels of longer and shorter lengths, all sold in a package. The BATFE says that these must be sold as "pistols", and there is no law about making a rifle out of a pistol, the firearm remains a pistol. The owner must just not assemble it in a configuration that would make it an SBR. With the pistol grips on the receiver, any length barrel is allowed. With the shoulder stock on the frame, only barrels of 16" or longer, are allowed. The owner my change the configuration at will.

It can also NOT EVER BE FITTED WITH A FORWARD GRIP. which is very nice for short rifles. of which i have shot down in tennessee.
Those firearms that fall into the "Michigan Pistol" class, are NOT PISTOLS by Federal standards. Michigan has NO law that addresses forward grips at all, they are perfectly legal on "Michigan Pistols", but on a Federal pistol, it would make it an AOW. The Feds only restrict VFG's on what is a pistol by their definition.

To the why ruin it? because you are very very limited as to what you can modify on that rifle because it has to be registered as a pistol and must be looked at as such. and i do not think a stock is allowed on pistols... not sure though
The fact that a certain class of rifles or shotguns must be registered in Michigan as pistols, does not alter the limitations of what can be modified on what is other ways a rifle or shotgun.

See the above statements about the TC contender. Other than that, as long as it started out as a pistol, and never becomes an SBS or SBR in the process, have at it.

I noticed that you have posted similar miss-information in another thread, you really need to learn about the laws.

Quaamik
04-26-2012, 09:12 PM
There is always a chance it could backfire. But then there are bills activly being pushed to remove the whole "michigan pistol" thing. Those would leave us with nothing with a stock under 26 inches allowed AT ALL. Depending on the exact wording, it might still be measured with the stock folded.

Myself, I'd rather be proactive and try to get the ball rolling on SBRs/SBSs. Worst case, the bills re-defining a Michigan Pistol go through and we cant carry them or own SBRs/SBSs. Best case, we keep the definition of under 30" being defined as a pistol in Michigan, with the right to carry it, and we get SBRs/SBSs. Somewhere in between is losing one / gaining the other.

GarrettJ
04-26-2012, 09:26 PM
Best case, we keep the definition of under 30" being defined as a pistol in Michigan, with the right to carry it, and we get SBRs/SBSs.
Not quite. Best case, the "MI Pistol" definition goes away and we are allowed to conceal any firearm. And we get SBRs / SBSs.

Dansjeep2000
05-01-2012, 05:11 PM
anyone heard anything about this? I am starting to get a major jones going for an SBR or 3. What can we do to get the ball rolling?

Helspar
05-24-2012, 07:09 PM
Trying to find a list of states that allow SBS and SBRs but nothing seems up to date and one list actually showed Michigan as allowing all NFA items.

The argument for removing Michigans restrictions on all NFA items is the same argument used for passing concealed carry, allowing suprressors and even repealing the helmet law for motorcycles; there is demonstrable proof that many states who already allow such things do not suffer from the "mayhem and destruction" that always is the argument against removing these restrictions.

The passage of concealed carry, even though over half the states in America had similar shall issue laws, was supposed to be the end of civilisation as we know it here in Michigan accoring those opposed to our freedoms.

Republican politicians (and some Democrats) come to us hat in hand at election time and talk about our 2A liberties. We have given them exactly what they said they needed, control of our states government.

This should not be something that we should have to fight for.

Dansjeep2000
05-24-2012, 07:19 PM
Republican politicians (and some Democrats) come to us hat in hand at election time and talk about our 2A liberties. We have given them exactly what they said they needed, control of our states government.

This should not be something that we should have to fight for.
:yeahthat:

What can we do at this point? Does anyone here have access to someone in the legislature that could draft a bill for us?

Edward Pireh
05-24-2012, 07:39 PM
Trying to find a list of states that allow SBS and SBRs but nothing seems up to date and one list actually showed Michigan as allowing all NFA items.

The argument for removing Michigans restrictions on all NFA items is the same argument used for passing concealed carry, allowing suprressors and even repealing the helmet law for motorcycles; there is demonstrable proof that many states who already allow such things do not suffer from the "mayhem and destruction" that always is the argument against removing these restrictions.

The passage of concealed carry, even though over half the states in America had similar shall issue laws, was supposed to be the end of civilisation as we know it here in Michigan accoring those opposed to our freedoms.

Republican politicians (and some Democrats) come to us hat in hand at election time and talk about our 2A liberties. We have given them exactly what they said they needed, control of our states government.

This should not be something that we should have to fight for.

At this time SBRs and SBS are legal in the state of michigan ONLY if they are C&Rs (Curio & Relic)
A shorty shotgun wich is a registered AOW (Any Other Weapon) Such as the Serbu Super Shorty is however 100% legal in Michigan. The fact that the Serbu is 1) a smooth bore pistol and 2) has a factory installed forward grip puts it in the AOW catagory and not in the SBS catagory. This makes it only a $5 transfer tax for a 12 gauge shotgun with a 6.5" barrel that is legal in Michigan :)

The General
05-24-2012, 07:55 PM
getting the SBR/SBS out of title II status and into title I status is the key.

The goal is to be able to go into a gun shop, pass a background check, and go out the door with a 10" barrel Uzi.

An argument can be made to repeal the NFA of 1934 by stating that the modern background check has replaced the need for title II weapons to need ATF scrutiny/registration/etc. This would throw all "NFA" items into title I status if successful.

However, states would still be able to regulate. I would imagine that MG's would still be banned, as would destructive devices.

Edward Pireh
05-24-2012, 08:00 PM
getting the SBR/SBS out of title II status and into title I status is the key.

The goal is to be able to go into a gun shop, pass a background check, and go out the door with a 10" barrel Uzi.

An argument can be made to repeal the NFA of 1934 by stating that the modern background check has replaced the need for title II weapons to need ATF scrutiny/registration/etc. This would throw all "NFA" items into title I status if successful.

However, states would still be able to regulate. I would imagine that MG's would still be banned, as would destructive devices.

I agree! But most destructive devices are legal... Michigan does allow non explosive destructive devices. For example, the Anzio 20mm cannon is a destructive device but is legal. Michigan will allow the Anzio 20mm to be transfered via ATF form 4
And transferable MG's have been legal in MI since 2004

Helspar
05-24-2012, 09:33 PM
getting the SBR/SBS out of title II status and into title I status is the key.

The goal is to be able to go into a gun shop, pass a background check, and go out the door with a 10" barrel Uzi.

An argument can be made to repeal the NFA of 1934 by stating that the modern background check has replaced the need for title II weapons to need ATF scrutiny/registration/etc. This would throw all "NFA" items into title I status if successful.


Agree completely that that should be the ultimate goal but getting that passed nationally would be a fight.
EDIT: Its a fight worth having. No reason for a 6 month + paper trail background approval PER ITEM in this day and age. Its a detterent, nothing more.

Getting Michigan to repeal all state regulations regarding NFA items and simply follow the federal law now that we have given them a Republican governor, Republican state house, Republican state senate, and a Republican attorney general should not be a fight at all and only makes sense to those of us who have supported them.

Dansjeep2000
05-24-2012, 09:41 PM
Getting Michigan to repeal all state regulations regarding NFA items and simply follow the federal law now that we have given them a Republican governor, Republican state house, Republican state senate, and a Republican attorney general should not be a fight at all and only makes sense to those of us who have supported them.
This has been my point all along. We gave them everything they asked for, now its time to see the fruits of our labor.

SIG229R
06-03-2012, 11:01 PM
SBR's are my must-have item.:(


I wish Michigan would let us own SBR's. But you can still own one Legally here in Michigan, well only if its a transferable machinegun. You can put any barrel length you want on it than. :fa:

Pics of my Michigan Legal SBR.

http://i50.tinypic.com/bhi4m.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/o5ro0l.jpg

It would be nice though to acquire a NIB Colt SBR for around $1200 bucks.

M11A1
06-04-2012, 05:03 AM
Ok, let me try to get this clear.. You stated how michigan is a sbs/sbr state which is true but if my memory serves me correct (without saying names) I know of a few law enforcement officers which have legally purchased SBRs. I dont know how that is possible, but in the first post was it being said that it was legal for law enforcement officers to personally own SBRs?

GarrettJ
06-04-2012, 05:13 AM
...but in the first post was it being said that it was legal for law enforcement officers to personally own SBRs?
Not for the officer to own as an individual. But if the department were to own it and issue it to the officer, that would be legitimate.

M11A1
06-04-2012, 07:45 AM
Hmmm, interesting. I'm trying to figure out how to say this without anyone figuring out who I'm talking about..lol. My "source/dealer" only mentioned about having to be a LEO nothing about the department, I was listening hard waiting to here mention of department letterhead or something but nope. So Idk, maybe I missed something.

GarrettJ
06-04-2012, 08:15 AM
Hmmm, interesting. I'm trying to figure out how to say this without anyone figuring out who I'm talking about..lol. My "source/dealer" only mentioned about having to be a LEO nothing about the department, I was listening hard waiting to here mention of department letterhead or something but nope. So Idk, maybe I missed something.


Think of it this way. As far as the feds are concerned, Officer Friendly is no different than... me. A transfer to him is no different than a transfer to any other individual. And state law does not allow for a non-C&R SBR/SBS to be owned by any individual. The only exception I am aware of is for a government agency, which can own them. So as I noted, the agency would have to own it and then issue it to that officer. It's not uncommon for officers to buy machine guns, etc. with personal funds, but for the dept. to "own" them. Upon leaving the dept. they either donate them to the dept. or "sell" them to another officer.

Your dealer may just be trying to make the deal and then later, pull an "Oh, by the way..."

Or maybe he doesn't know, and will be surprised when ATF rejects the transfer.

M11A1
06-04-2012, 09:05 AM
He's done several so far and the guys take them to the pit quite often but as you pointed out there might be a back story that I am unaware of.

mmissile
06-05-2012, 03:18 PM
I wish Michigan would let us own SBR's. But you can still own one Legally here in Michigan, well only if its a transferable machinegun. You can put any barrel length you want on it than. :fa:

Pics of my Michigan Legal SBR.

http://i50.tinypic.com/bhi4m.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/o5ro0l.jpg

It would be nice though to acquire a NIB Colt SBR for around $1200 bucks.



Not interested in feeding full-auto stuff.

Dansjeep2000
06-05-2012, 03:33 PM
Not interested in feeding full-auto stuff.
Its not the feeding it issue for me, its the up front cost of a pre-86 MG.

IndustrialRescue
06-09-2012, 12:16 PM
I recently received a letter from State House Majority Leader Jim Stamas (my representative) informing me that there is legislation in the works to allow SBR and SBS.

I'll have to find the letter, but when I do, I'll post it up.

smac61
06-09-2012, 12:18 PM
I recently received a letter from State House Majority Leader Jim Stamas (my representative) informing me that there is legislation in the works to allow SBR and SBS.

I'll have to find the letter, but when I do, I'll post it up.

I got a chubby...

IndustrialRescue
06-09-2012, 12:27 PM
I got a chubby...

As did I.

I'll hunt for it when I get home from work. I don't have a scanner, so I'll type it out, word for word.

rjrivero
06-09-2012, 01:33 PM
I recently received a letter from State House Majority Leader Jim Stamas (my representative) informing me that there is legislation in the works to allow SBR and SBS.

I'll have to find the letter, but when I do, I'll post it up.
For the record, this is how the ball got rolling. A friend of mine who is a Title II mfg in Michigan wanted to market SBR's to LEO's for their capacity to work hallways and buildings as more and more entities are looking more seriously at "Active Shooter" scenarios.

This was the reply he got when he asked about manufacturing SBR's and SBS's for LEOs.


Edit: I have to redact the letter before I post it. Standby.

rjrivero
06-09-2012, 01:38 PM
So, in order to be able for a Class III MFG to make sbr's and sbs's to sell to LEO's they need to change the law.

This is a *draft* of the law that is being proposed. I haven't seen the actual proposal yet, but this is an early *draft.* The proposed changes are in bold.


750.224b Short-barreled shotgun or rifle; manufacture, sale, or possession as felony; penalty; exceptions; applicability to collector's item.

Sec. 224b.

(1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled rifle.

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

(3) This section does not apply to the sale, offering for sale, or possession of a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun which the secretary of the treasury of the United States of America, or his or her delegate, under 26 USC, sections 5801 through 5872, or 18 USC, sections 921 through 928, has found to be a curio, relic, antique, museum piece, or collector's item not likely to be used as a weapon or to a person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or the secretary's delegate to manufacture, sell, or possess a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun, but only if the person selling, offering for sale or possessing the firearm has also fully complied with section 2 or 2a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422 and 28.422a.

Section 20 of chapter 16 of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 776.20, applies to this subsection.
I asked them to remove the "license" language, and replace it with language encompassing the NFA requirements directly, but I don't know if they included those changes.

The potential downside is that if this IS the proposed legislation, and it IS approved, then MFG's will automatically have the ability to make and sell SBR's and SBS's to LEO's but it would take another clarification letter from the AG to allow for private ownership.

So this may not be a "done deal" as we would like.

IndustrialRescue
06-09-2012, 03:21 PM
So, in order to be able for a Class III MFG to make sbr's and sbs's to sell to LEO's they need to change the law.

This is a *draft* of the law that is being proposed. I haven't seen the actual proposal yet, but this is an early *draft.* The proposed changes are in bold.


I asked them to remove the "license" language, and replace it with language encompassing the NFA requirements directly, but I don't know if they included those changes.

The potential downside is that if this IS the proposed legislation, and it IS approved, then MFG's will automatically have the ability to make and sell SBR's and SBS's to LEO's but it would take another clarification letter from the AG to allow for private ownership.

So this may not be a "done deal" as we would like.

Yup. The "licensed" part had me wondering when I got the letter. But you saved me the trouble of finding it.

Stevie-Ray
06-11-2012, 06:13 PM
With the shoulder stock on the frame, only barrels of 16" or longer, are allowed. The owner my change the configuration at will.So, I could get a shoulder stock for my T/C Contender Super 16 in .45-70? Not that I would do that as it's recoil is horrendous, and I'm not sure I want that transferred to my shoulder. Still, it's nice to have options.8)

Skidog
06-11-2012, 07:11 PM
So, I could get a shoulder stock for my T/C Contender Super 16 in .45-70? Not that I would do that as it's recoil is horrendous, and I'm not sure I want that transferred to my shoulder. Still, it's nice to have options.8)
No you still couldn't install a shoulder stock on a pistol. Buying an sbr with the proper tax stamp isn't the same as converting a postol into an sbr.

GarrettJ
06-11-2012, 07:41 PM
So, I could get a shoulder stock for my T/C Contender Super 16 in .45-70?

No you still couldn't install a shoulder stock on a pistol. Buying an sbr with the proper tax stamp isn't the same as converting a postol into an sbr.
Stevie-Ray can absolutely do what he is suggesting, and he would not be making an NFA firearm. If you install a buttstock on a pistol, you have created an SBR only if the barrel is less than 16", or if the OAL is less than 26" if the resulting firearm was "made from a rifle".

What S-R suggests is neither. A 16" Contender rifle is relatively compact, but I get 28" overall on mine.


Not that I would do that as it's recoil is horrendous, and I'm not sure I want that transferred to my shoulder. Still, it's nice to have options.8)
As it is now, your wrist is absorbing all of that recoil. If you putt a buttstock on the gun, your shoulder will more easily absorb the recoil. You also have the option of installing a recoil-absorbing buttpad and/or mercury recoil reducers on the rifle stock.

Quaamik
06-11-2012, 09:43 PM
nice.

Has this been put in to be reviewed voted on this legislative session, or is it just feeling the water to see if it would be introduced next session?

Quaamik
06-11-2012, 09:46 PM
Its not the feeding it issue for me, its the up front cost of a pre-86 MG.

Ditto here.

Especially since the only SBRs I'm interested in are copies of the Thompson and I can't see spending as much as a car to get one.

Dansjeep2000
06-11-2012, 09:55 PM
So, in order to be able for a Class III MFG to make sbr's and sbs's to sell to LEO's they need to change the law.

This is a *draft* of the law that is being proposed. I haven't seen the actual proposal yet, but this is an early *draft.* The proposed changes are in bold.


I asked them to remove the "license" language, and replace it with language encompassing the NFA requirements directly, but I don't know if they included those changes.

The potential downside is that if this IS the proposed legislation, and it IS approved, then MFG's will automatically have the ability to make and sell SBR's and SBS's to LEO's but it would take another clarification letter from the AG to allow for private ownership.

So this may not be a "done deal" as we would like.
Could not an argument be made that the AG opinion on Suppressors and the "license" requirement being met by the form 4 be extended to all remaining NFA items not expressly prohibited by State Law? Assuming this legislation passes of course.

rjrivero
06-12-2012, 08:57 AM
Could not an argument be made that the AG opinion on Suppressors and the "license" requirement being met by the form 4 be extended to all remaining NFA items not expressly prohibited by State Law? Assuming this legislation passes of course.
If that were the case, then you wouldn't have needed the suppressor opinion letter at all. When the Letter for Machine Gun's was written, it would have then covered the silencer provision as well, since the wording is almost identical for machine guns and suppressors.

Dansjeep2000
06-12-2012, 07:24 PM
If that were the case, then you wouldn't have needed the suppressor opinion letter at all. When the Letter for Machine Gun's was written, it would have then covered the silencer provision as well, since the wording is almost identical for machine guns and suppressors.
Good point.

IndustrialRescue
06-14-2012, 11:31 AM
No you still couldn't install a shoulder stock on a pistol. Buying an sbr with the proper tax stamp isn't the same as converting a postol into an sbr.


Uhhhh, yes it is. Form 1, manufacture of a short barreled rifle. Folks do it with the Draco AK pistols all the time. You could also do a Form 1 for an AOW, and rather than a stock, add a vertical foregrip.

noob5,000,000
06-15-2012, 04:07 PM
I recently received a letter from State House Majority Leader Jim Stamas (my representative) informing me that there is legislation in the works to allow SBR and SBS.

I'll have to find the letter, but when I do, I'll post it up.
:heart:

Please keep us updated on this.

kbdm
09-30-2012, 10:20 AM
Bump for SBS/SBR justice.

Was going to link to this in another thread but I haven't passed my 10 post count probation period.

kbdm
09-30-2012, 10:32 AM
There is absolutely no reason we here in Michigan should be denied this change in the laws.

Unless the Republican politicians that we helped get elected, the ones that show up at every gun show talking about how much they love the 2A around election time, are willing to go on the record and state that the citizens of Michigan are less trustworthy then the citizens of Ohio, who ARE trusted to own SBR/SBS.

Put them on the spot.

Flash-hider
09-30-2012, 05:25 PM
I would think the more efficient way to allow SBR/SBS is to follow the same path that it took to allow machine gun's and suppressors.

rjrivero
09-30-2012, 05:38 PM
I would think the more efficient way to allow SBR/SBS is to follow the same path that it took to allow machine gun's and suppressors.
Impossible. The SBR/SBS law is worded differently than the Machine Gun/Silencer law. There is no "License" that makes ownership of SBR's or SBS's legal, as there was for Machine Guns and silencers.

The only way to allow them in Michigan, is to change the law. The current proposed changes will then *probably* require an Attorney General opinion as the machine guns and silencers did in the past, if the proposed changes are as I alluded to above.

Flash-hider
09-30-2012, 07:06 PM
After I've read All the posts I see I was wrong. Thank you for correcting me. As I understand it currently I could own a SBR/SBS if I have a C&R license and a lot of extra bucks not doing anything.

GarrettJ
09-30-2012, 07:15 PM
...As I understand it currently I could own a SBR/SBS if I have a C&R license and a lot of extra bucks not doing anything.
The gun has to qualify as a C&R for you to possess it in MI. There were some people taking Title I guns that qualified as C&R (50+ years old) and registering and chopping them. One or two were approved, but then ATF decided the gun had to originally be in SBR/SBS configuration, otherwise you are "making" a new firearm.

That goes contrary to their previous rulings, not to mention being contrary to the actual text of the law (go read up on what it takes for a gun to be a C&R some time), but when has that ever stopped them?

Flash-hider
09-30-2012, 10:03 PM
It all depends which way the wind is blowing that day when they give an opinion.

I do know a gun needs to be listed on the C&R list. Looking at my verbiage I did make it appear that a C&R license would cover anything SBR or SBS.

ruedger455
10-01-2012, 07:21 AM
Any new updates on this bill has it hit the legislate yet

DV8r
10-01-2012, 07:50 AM
getting the SBR/SBS out of title II status and into title I status is the key.

The goal is to be able to go into a gun shop, pass a background check, and go out the door with a 10" barrel Uzi.

An argument can be made to repeal the NFA of 1934 by stating that the modern background check has replaced the need for title II weapons to need ATF scrutiny/registration/etc. This would throw all "NFA" items into title I status if successful.

However, states would still be able to regulate. I would imagine that MG's would still be banned, as would destructive devices.
Our goal needs to be:
To get back to what our fore fathers intended and remove all government regulations and illegal taxes on a gun that is similar to one that may be used by the current military or law enforcement.
Let's not lose track of the original intent of the second amendment. "To keep our politicians honest and prevent them from taking away more of our RIGHTS."

dogface
10-02-2012, 11:48 AM
Our goal needs to be:
To get back to what our fore fathers intended and remove all government regulations and illegal taxes on a gun that is similar to one that may be used by the current military or law enforcement.
Let's not lose track of the original intent of the second amendment. "To keep our politicians honest and prevent them from taking away more of our RIGHTS."

Amen. :usa: