PDA

View Full Version : H.B. 5704 manufacture, sale, and possession of firearm muffler or silencer



Tallbear
05-31-2012, 09:42 AM
HB 5704 of 2012 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2012-HB-5704)
Weapons; firearms; manufacture, sale, and possession of firearm muffler or silencer; allow under certain circumstances. Amends sec. 224 of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224).
Last Action: 5/30/2012 referred to Committee on Judiciary

45/70fan
05-31-2012, 10:45 AM
What is a slungshot?



Sec. 224. (1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for

sale, or possess any of the following:........

(d) A blackjack, slungshot, billy, metallic knuckles, sand

club, sand bag, or bludgeon.

Unistat76
05-31-2012, 12:49 PM
What is a slungshot?
A slung shot is a weighted rope or lanyard. Most ones you see these days are "key chain fobs" that are made of paracord with a lead ball in a "monkey fist" knot.

http://www.tungsten-alloy.com/pic/paracord-monkey-fist.jpg

Roundballer
05-31-2012, 01:19 PM
Well......Look at that. Just insert 3 words and we no longer depend on an AG opinion. Just make cans legal.


What is a slungshot?

More information:

It is a weight on a short "cord". They were used to throw a light line between ships, which then could be used to haul a heavier line across.

http://www.gatling-gun.com/images/Monkey_Fist_Slungshot_cc.jpg

The knot that covers the weight is called a "Monkeys' fist". They were carried by sailors on shore leave as a form of weapon in the 18th & 19th centuries.

There are other forms of the same thing that were created specifically as a weapon.

DP425
06-03-2012, 05:50 PM
Okay question here...


"Sec. 224. (1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for

sale, or possess any of the following:"


Skip the details and move to:


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

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

224d.

(b) A person manufacturing firearms, explosives, or munitions

of war by virtue of a contract with a department of the government

of the United States.

(c) A person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the

United States or the secretary's delegate to manufacture, sell, or

possess a machine gun, MUFFLER OR SILENCER, or a device, weapon,

cartridge, container, or contrivance described in subsection (1).
"


Now, the way I'm reading this- since it had been determined that a form 4 is a license for the above purposes... and "weapon" is listed, which by its definition is very widely encompassing... Wouldn't then we also be allowed SBR's and SBS's? They ARE weapons and this DOES give a means for them to be "licensed" in the same mannor as machine guns and silencers.

SO, why are they still a no-no for Michigan?

Roundballer
06-03-2012, 06:11 PM
Okay question here...

Skip the details and move to:


"


Now, the way I'm reading this- since it had been determined that a form 4 is a license for the above purposes... and "weapon" is listed, which by its definition is very widely encompassing... Wouldn't then we also be allowed SBR's and SBS's? They ARE weapons and this DOES give a means for them to be "licensed" in the same mannor as machine guns and silencers.

SO, why are they still a no-no for Michigan?
Because SBR/SBS are not listed in Subsection (1), and the word "weapon" is not used in Subsection (1).

DP425
06-04-2012, 12:22 PM
Ahhhh... okay makes sense.


I have a strong desire for an SBR!

Dansjeep2000
06-04-2012, 09:13 PM
So what does this mean?

DP425
06-04-2012, 09:31 PM
So what does this mean?


The second part that talks about having a license for the items... this bill puts silencer/muffler in that section. Before it was not there; so there technically was no means in the legislation to own a can- the AG's opinion essentially said cans fall under the purview of "weapon"... which is a sort of thin thread. This bill will place cans on the exact same footing as machine guns.

Dansjeep2000
06-04-2012, 09:35 PM
The second part that talks about having a license for the items... this bill puts silencer/muffler in that section. Before it was not there; so there technically was no means in the legislation to own a can- the AG's opinion essentially said cans fall under the purview of "weapon"... which is a sort of thin thread. This bill will place cans on the exact same footing as machine guns.
OK, good deal.

Since they are going through the trouble of amending the bill, and we have full Republican control of the State at the moment, could there be a better time to get them to add SBR/SBS legal if "licensed" by the BATFE definition to this?

DP425
06-04-2012, 10:04 PM
OK, good deal.

Since they are going through the trouble of amending the bill, and we have full Republican control of the State at the moment, could there be a better time to get them to add SBR/SBS legal if "licensed" by the BATFE definition to this?


That's a good point- if they added SBR/SBS to both parts, it would then solve that problem. That might be something to contact the bill's sponsor with!

Roundballer
06-04-2012, 10:57 PM
That's a good point- if they added SBR/SBS to both parts, it would then solve that problem. That might be something to contact the bill's sponsor with!
No, it would not solve the issue. There are several other MCL's that would also need to be revised.

Starting with this one: MCL 750.224b (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-224b)


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.

dpgperftest
06-04-2012, 11:26 PM
silencer/muffler are not weapon's

DP425
06-05-2012, 12:44 AM
silencer/muffler are not weapon's


Well, they are treated as such federally... but anyway, you are correct... "device" was the word used to link the first part which bans the ownership of silencers to the third part which allows for ownership of items if licensed.

DP425
06-05-2012, 12:50 AM
No, it would not solve the issue. There are several other MCL's that would also need to be revised.

Starting with this one: MCL 750.224b (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-224b)



Again I stand corrected- however, a package bill (with companions for the other MCL's) would do it... Such as is being worked with repeal of the registration/permitting for pistols.

And I don't know- can they change one part of the law without changing the other? It would obviously leave counterdictory language which would have to be solved either through the courts or additional bills passed at a later date. But at the same time, it would seem that the latest part of the MCL would prevail. This is of course, all theory on my end... I'm not 100% sure how that works; if a newer law runs counter to an older law, but neither are a violation of the constitution (and in this case we can assume there is no such precedent to declare either unconstitutional), which law stands? It's a moot point I know, because they try to not be in the habit of doing such things, but for my own knowledge and that of other interested parties... how would that play out?

Quaamik
06-05-2012, 08:43 PM
It would be nice to add SBRs/SBSs to this. It might make it more complicated, but simple does not gaurantee passage.

Dansjeep2000
06-05-2012, 09:32 PM
Again I stand corrected- however, a package bill (with companions for the other MCL's) would do it... Such as is being worked with repeal of the registration/permitting for pistols.

And I don't know- can they change one part of the law without changing the other? It would obviously leave counterdictory language which would have to be solved either through the courts or additional bills passed at a later date. But at the same time, it would seem that the latest part of the MCL would prevail. This is of course, all theory on my end... I'm not 100% sure how that works; if a newer law runs counter to an older law, but neither are a violation of the constitution (and in this case we can assume there is no such precedent to declare either unconstitutional), which law stands? It's a moot point I know, because they try to not be in the habit of doing such things, but for my own knowledge and that of other interested parties... how would that play out?
It seems to me if they did add them to this bill it would just force the legislature to make the changes on the other bills. Kinda the same way this bill came about due to the new attorney general opinion on suppressors.

Again, I will say there is no better time to make a racket about this, they are amending the law to legalize suppressors, holding meetings, taking votes. Now is the time to add sbr/sbs to that equation since they are already looking at NFA regulated items in Michigan.