S.B. 0610 SBR/SBS [Archive] - Michigan Gun Owners Community Forum

Deadmeat3344

10-09-2013, 03:28 PM

that they are legal if legally possessed/transferred in accordance with federal law :banana:

A bill to amend 1931 PA 328, entitled

"The Michigan penal code,"

by amending section 224b (MCL 750.224b), as amended by 2008 PA 196.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 224b. (1) A person shall not make, manufacture, sell,

offer for sale, transfer, 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, 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. This

section does not apply to a firearm that is lawfully made,

manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law.

(4) A person, excluding a manufacturer, lawfully making,

transferring, or possessing a firearm under this section shall

comply with section 2 or 2a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422 and 28.422a.

(5) Section 20 of chapter 16 of the code of criminal

procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 776.20, applies to this subsection (3).

durus5995

10-09-2013, 03:31 PM

I can't read the bill,what does it say?

Can you read this link?
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2013-SIB-0610.htm

Basically it makes it to where you can possess a SBR by going through the standard process of applying with the BATF. No more no less.

I wonder what the chances this will even make it out of committee.

Does anyone know if when you apply for a short barreled rifle if another background check is run by the feds? I am just thinking of a way to sell this to the antis.

brass hat

10-09-2013, 03:36 PM

Can you read this link?
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2013-SIB-0610.htm

I can read that one but not the fist one posted. Thanks

M1Grandfan100

10-09-2013, 04:21 PM

Finally!!! Lets make sure we give this all the support we can. I'm sick of not having SBR's:uzi:

BMT85

10-09-2013, 04:29 PM

Finally!!! Lets make sure we give this all the support we can. I'm sick of not having SBR's:uzi:

^ This! I didn't have much hope of seeing this in near future with all the anti-gun crap going on.

durus5995

10-09-2013, 04:34 PM

^ This! I didn't have much hope of seeing this in near future with all the anti-gun crap going on.

Honestly I think it depends on how the media will react to it and how it is marketed to the masses.

I think this is where we could possibly use the restrictive nature of the NFA to our benefit.

M1Grandfan100

10-09-2013, 04:40 PM

Honestly I think it depends on how the media will react to it and how it is marketed to the masses.

I think this is where we could possibly use the restrictive nature of the NFA to our benefit.
Yeah I can see that being possible. Plus we have plenty of examples of states legalizing SBR's and nothing bad happened because of it.

nrich1979

10-09-2013, 04:44 PM

I have a tag line..

SBRs it's for the children..

oldmann1967

10-09-2013, 06:36 PM

Just emailed my Senator.

Your turn!
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/members/alphamemberlist.htm

dencarloz

10-09-2013, 07:23 PM

sbr!yeahh!:yeahthat:

GarrettJ

10-09-2013, 08:10 PM

I didn't see it posted yet in the Legislative Lighthouse, but SB610 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28majwov55qdctrmyvo4lwen45%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2013-SB-0610) has been introduced in the state senate, to allow individuals to possess short-barreled rifles & shotguns.

It is being reported on ARFCom (http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_39/540857_SBR_SBS_Bill_Introduced___Need_to_Write_you r_legislators_to_co_sponsor_and_Support.html) as having AG support.

I'm happy to see my senator as one of the sponsors. Not sure if we need to start drumming up support among our state reps yet, or what needs to be done to get it through committee. But it's a start.

Dansjeep2000

10-09-2013, 08:17 PM

We need to be all over this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roundballer

10-09-2013, 09:04 PM

Posted about 5 hours ago:

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=266790

Nic

10-10-2013, 12:31 AM

Just e-mailed Senator Colbeck a thank you and encouragement to push this legislation forward.

backhandman

10-10-2013, 08:14 AM

Posted about 5 hours ago:

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=266790

SO. this should be everywhere and not just in one location.

Buffman

10-10-2013, 08:44 AM

emailed Tonya Schuitmaker!

Roundballer

10-10-2013, 08:47 AM

SO. this should be everywhere and not just in one location.
It SHOULD be in the Legislative Lighthouse, not in General or the NFA forum.

jmonarch

10-10-2013, 09:35 AM

Emailed Rick Jones

backhandman

10-10-2013, 10:28 AM

Not everyone looks there.... something as important at this should be more places.

Roundballer

10-10-2013, 11:32 AM

Not everyone looks there.... something as important at this should be more places.
Do you see the contradiction in your statement?

What makes this bill more (or less) important than any other bill listed in Legislative Lighthouse? Is this more important than removing CEZ's, Pistol caliber rifles in the shotgun zone?

If bills were important to people, then the people would be looking where all of the bills are posted. It should be there (it isn't yet), then people would know WHERE to look for it. It is a thread about a bill, and a duplicate at that, it should be where all the rest are.

Tallbear

10-10-2013, 12:35 PM

SB 0610 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-SB-0610)
Weapons; firearms; manufacture, possession, or transfer of certain short-barreled shotguns or rifles; allow. Amends sec. 224b of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224b).
Last Action: 10/9/2013 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Walther

10-10-2013, 01:39 PM

So, this bill would allow us to own one but not transfer it? I'm at work, couldn't read the whole thing.

Divegeek

10-10-2013, 01:42 PM

So, this bill would allow us to own one but not transfer it? I'm at work, couldn't read the whole thing.

No it basically brings us in line with Federal law. Fill out the form, pay $200, wait 6 months, then you can bring your new toy home.

Shyster

10-10-2013, 01:53 PM

The bill is being fast-tracked and is up for a committee vote on 10/15

Patrick

10-10-2013, 02:17 PM

Do you see the contradiction in your statement?

What makes this bill more (or less) important than any other bill listed in Legislative Lighthouse? Is this more important than removing CEZ's, Pistol caliber rifles in the shotgun zone?

If bills were important to people, then the people would be looking where all of the bills are posted. It should be there (it isn't yet), then people would know WHERE to look for it. It is a thread about a bill, and a duplicate at that, it should be where all the rest are.

It's not necessarily more important in general, but it is likely more important to people interested in SBRs who are more likely to be here than in the legislative lighthouse.

Pyzik

10-10-2013, 02:48 PM

MGO's Grassroots should be ALL over this. Officially.

Just emailed my Senator.

Your turn!
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/members/alphamemberlist.htm

Just emailed my RINO.

madmathew

10-10-2013, 03:31 PM

Called Sen. Kahn's office, he is a pro gun guy.

Nic

10-10-2013, 04:06 PM

Blackwood Arms

10-10-2013, 04:10 PM

The thing that sucks is that while my state senator is an Colbeck (R), my state rep is Slavens (D). Not that I think it will make a difference, but can someone type up an eloquent and articulate letter supporting passage of SBR/SBS that might sway a democrat?

This would be helpful for my sen/rep as well. I'm district 14 and neither are "my" choice as a voice.

kbdm

10-10-2013, 05:13 PM

The thing that sucks is that while my state senator is an Colbeck (R), my state rep is Slavens (D). Not that I think it will make a difference, but can someone type up an eloquent and articulate letter supporting passage of SBR/SBS that might sway a democrat?

Probably not the most eloquent.

Question: Senator______(Or Rep______), given that the citizens of the state of Ohio, along with many other states (the actual number seems hard to nail down) are allowed by their state to possess short barrelled rifles and shotguns in accordance with the National Firearms Act provided they pass all legal requirements set by Federal law to do so, is it your opinion that the citizens of the state of Michigan are as trustworthy as the citizens of the numerous states that already allow such possesion under Federal law and if so, do you support S.B. 0610? (....holy run on sentence Batman....) If not, why do you feel the citizens of Michigan are less trustworthy than the citizens of the states where possession is allowed under state law?

No matter how they try to spin it, press the trust issue. If they are against us being allowed sbr/sbs it is because they don't trust us. Period. Get them on record stating that they do not trust us.

Coctailer

10-10-2013, 05:18 PM

Sell them on the increased revenue the state will make through taxes and manufacturing.

Page 3 is mine!

Roundballer

10-10-2013, 06:22 PM

MGO now has notification of this bill in: Legislative Lighthouse - S.B. 0610 SBR/SBS (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=266909)

Interesting comment by Shyster in there too.

Roundballer

10-10-2013, 06:32 PM

Sell them on the increased revenue the state will make through taxes and manufacturing.
Include in your comments the fact that there is an extensive background check, even more extensive than for a CPL.
Also make them understand that we could not attract a manufacturer to set business and bring in jobs, without this change.

Page 3 is mine!
Huh? We are just half way through page 1

MGO now has notification of this bill in: Legislative Lighthouse - S.B. 0610 SBR/SBS (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=266909)

Interesting comment by Shyster in there too.

Blackwood Arms

10-10-2013, 06:53 PM

J. Browne

10-10-2013, 07:38 PM

why the big push shyster?

rexzor2007

10-10-2013, 08:46 PM

How would it work if we wanted to build one? I have plenty of weapons that I have been wanting to SBR for a while.

Roundballer

10-10-2013, 08:51 PM

why the big push shyster?
I am not Shyster (obviously), but I think that these "guys" in Lansing heard it when they were told that they would not be able to attract the manufacturers that they thought that they might. They already have legislation working for tax incentives for the firearms industries, some sort of "empowerment" zone or something. But why would a manufacturer want to come here to produce what has to stay within Michigan law. The manufacturers would not even have a shot at a military contract. Colt or Remington would not come here if they could not produce the SBR/SBS that the military would want.

I doubt that this has anything to do with 2A rights, it is the dollar $ign$ that they see.

We could do our best to support this by making sure that our reps/senators see both the "jobs", and that the extreme of the BATFE regs and checks would make this nothing, just like FA and cans.

SteveS

10-10-2013, 09:12 PM

Duplicate threads merged.

Kaeto

10-10-2013, 09:55 PM

I'll be able to speak to Sen Hopgood face to face on the 14th. So I'll bring this up with him.

madmathew

10-10-2013, 10:00 PM

It SHOULD be in the Legislative Lighthouse, not in General or the NFA forum.

I tried to post in the L L section but it said I didn't have permission to. Now that the mods moved it it all worked out.

madmathew

10-10-2013, 10:06 PM

I am not Shyster (obviously), but I think that these "guys" in Lansing heard it when they were told that they would not be able to attract the manufacturers that they thought that they might. They already have legislation working for tax incentives for the firearms industries, some sort of "empowerment" zone or something. But why would a manufacturer want to come here to produce what has to stay within Michigan law. The manufacturers would not even have a shot at a military contract. Colt or Remington would not come here if they could not produce the SBR/SBS that the military would want.

I doubt that this has anything to do with 2A rights, it is the dollar $ign$ that they see.

We could do our best to support this by making sure that our reps/senators see both the "jobs", and that the extreme of the BATFE regs and checks would make this nothing, just like FA and cans.

Makes perfect sense and its a "win-win" AFAIC. We get to have what we want and it brings manufacturing, jobs and money into the state.

luckless

10-11-2013, 05:05 AM

... but can someone type up an eloquent and articulate letter supporting passage of SBR/SBS that might sway a democrat?

"Dear Governor Snyder... "

I am still working on the rest of it.

Blackwood Arms

10-11-2013, 07:43 AM

As a manufacturer I would jump at the opportunity if this bill was to be past.

PM me if one of you would be willing to write a rock star letter for me (from the manufacturing viewpoint) I would be willing to throw my name, business and 07 behind it and send it out.

Not that I'm lazy but my letter to a Sen or Rep wouldn't help any of us.

Thank you SteveS for the PM,

I will not only send it to the 14th district but I will also do my best to send the letter out to as many Reps & Sen as I can. With the intention of bringing the manufacturing aspect to their attention.

TheQ

10-11-2013, 11:44 AM

I find it interesting that the thread is 5 pages and no one has even mentioned the state registration requirement in the bill....

durus5995

10-11-2013, 11:47 AM

I find it interesting that the thread is 5 pages and no one has even mentioned the state registration requirement in the bill....
I am not seeing the language in the bill for that. Where is it?

Tallbear

10-11-2013, 01:22 PM

COMMITTEE: Judiciary

DATE: Tuesday, October 15, 2013

TIME: 2:30 p.m.

PLACE: Room 110, Farnum Building, 125 W. Allegan Street, Lansing, MI 48933

PHONE: Michael Hart (373-5312)
Committee Clerk

AGENDA

SB 581 Sen. Jones Criminal procedure; sentencing; verification of school enrollment or employment of individual released from jail to attend school or for employment purposes; amend day parole act to correct citation reference.

SB 582 Sen. Marleau Crimes; weapons; penalties for intentionally discharging a firearm from vehicle or at a dwelling or a potentially occupied structure; increase under certain circumstances.

SB 583 Sen. Ananich Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for increased penalties for crime of intentionally discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle or at a dwelling or potentially occupied structure; enact.

SB 610 Sen. Green Weapons; firearms; manufacture, possession, or transfer of certain short-barreled shotguns or rifles; allow.

Divegeek

10-11-2013, 08:11 PM

I am not seeing the language in the bill for that. Where is it?
It's the part at the end that says purchaser must comply with either mcl. 28.422 or 28.422a. Those sections are the current law about purchase permits, RI60's and registration.

If this passed as is, would that mean that since an sbr/sbs would be registered as a pistol that one could transport it loaded in a vehicle or carry it concealed?

madmathew

10-11-2013, 08:56 PM

Shyster

10-11-2013, 09:39 PM

I will be addressing the committee at the hearing as MGO's attorney supporting passage.

Grassroots activism at its finest!

pgaplayerless

10-11-2013, 10:04 PM

I find it interesting that the thread is 5 pages and no one has even mentioned the state registration requirement in the bill....

what's it matter if you are submitting a "pistol registration" when feds got the weapon tied to your mug shots and finger prints?

pgaplayerless

10-11-2013, 10:04 PM

"Dear Governor Snyder... "

I am still working on the rest of it.

"sales tax revenue, sales tax revenue, sales tax revenue"

DP425

10-11-2013, 11:07 PM

It's the part at the end that says purchaser must comply with either mcl. 28.422 or 28.422a. Those sections are the current law about purchase permits, RI60's and registration.

If this passed as is, would that mean that since an sbr/sbs would be registered as a pistol that one could transport it loaded in a vehicle or carry it concealed?

This seems like a glaring problem here. We have the MI definition of a pistol, which certainly does not cover SBR's/SBS's... then this bill make reference to having to comply with a section of the law that covers pistols and pistols only. Either this section is meaningless or they intend to change mcl. 28.422/28.422a to include SBR's and SBS's. To me anyway, without either a change in the pistol definition or a change in the registration section to expand it beyond just pistols, the last part of that bill is nothing more than wasted ink.

Or am I way off here?

luckless

10-12-2013, 01:13 PM

This seems like a glaring problem here. We have the MI definition of a pistol, which certainly does not cover SBR's/SBS's... then this bill make reference to having to comply with a section of the law that covers pistols and pistols only. Either this section is meaningless or they intend to change mcl. 28.422/28.422a to include SBR's and SBS's. To me anyway, without either a change in the pistol definition or a change in the registration section to expand it beyond just pistols, the last part of that bill is nothing more than wasted ink.

Or am I way off here?
I believe the intent is to expand registration to ALL guns. It is what Snyder wants. Once SBR and SBS are required to be registered we will have a law that can be amended one inch at a time.

pgaplayerless

10-12-2013, 01:47 PM

I believe the intent is to expand registration to ALL guns. It is what Snyder wants. Once SBR and SBS are required to be registered we will have a law that can be amended one inch at a time.

ummmm NO.

Pistol by MI Definition:

(e) "Pistol" means a loaded or unloaded firearm that is 26 inches or less in length, or a loaded or unloaded firearm that by its construction and appearance conceals it as a firearm.

This is the current definition. Thus any SBR/SBS are also considered a "pistol" under MI law.

It's no different than what's currently going on for Machine Guns. My SMG is a machine guns, but both Federal and Michigan definitions. But additionally it's considered a pistol under MI law. So I had to register it, and can conceal carry it.

luckless

10-12-2013, 01:54 PM

ummmm NO.

Pistol by MI Definition:

This is the current definition. Thus any SBR/SBS are also considered a "pistol" under MI law.

It's no different than what's currently going on for Machine Guns. My SMG is a machine guns, but both Federal and Michigan definitions. But additionally it's considered a pistol under MI law. So I had to register it, and can conceal carry it.
The solution is to change the definition to match the fed's and dismantle registration.

Dansjeep2000

10-12-2013, 03:06 PM

Since we lost MI Pistols I think this will be a good way to back having a truck gun.

Nic

10-12-2013, 05:58 PM

Thus any SBR/SBS are also considered a "pistol" under MI law.

The overall length of a 12.5" barreled AR is over 26". Just because it's an SBR doesn't mean it meets the Michigan definition of a pistol.

pgaplayerless

10-12-2013, 06:46 PM

The overall length of a 12.5" barreled AR is over 26". Just because it's an SBR doesn't mean it meets the Michigan definition of a pistol.

They it would mean it complies with 28.422/28.422a as it's exempt.....

madmathew

10-13-2013, 04:41 AM

I will be addressing the committee at the hearing as MGO's attorney supporting passage.

Grassroots activism at its finest!

Awesome!!

Revdrshad

10-14-2013, 04:04 AM

Sen Hopgood emailed!!
:cheers:

Kaeto

10-14-2013, 04:49 AM

Sen Hopgood emailed!!
:cheers:

You do know that he has a coffee hour today at the Allen Park Library at 6 pm don't you? I plan on being there.

BOSS302

10-14-2013, 08:30 AM

I'll emailed him a number of times on pro gun bills. His replies were very anti gun IMO.

You do know that he has a coffee hour today at the Allen Park Library at 6 pm don't you? I plan on being there.

Kaeto

10-14-2013, 01:05 PM

Yes he is very anti-gun. But he is also willing to listen to his constituents, and if enough of us present him with facts he may vote the way we want.

Kaeto

10-14-2013, 09:07 PM

Spoke to Sen Hopgood about this today. Urged him to vote favorably on it.

Roadblock

10-14-2013, 09:34 PM

Question will a SBR/SBS require a CLEO sign off like a suppressor does? Will I be able to SBR my existing rifle?

Revdrshad

10-14-2013, 10:56 PM

You do know that he has a coffee hour today at the Allen Park Library at 6 pm don't you? I plan on being there.

He did that At the Bacon Library in Wyandotte about a year ago. I posted it on here for everybody else.

Unfortunately, I was not able to make this one.

All my responses from him have been very anti gun also.

Revdrshad

10-14-2013, 11:05 PM

Question will a SBR/SBS require a CLEO sign off like a suppressor does? Will I be able to SBR my existing rifle?

I am not a lawyer Or class 3 dealer... But,

I believe you may be able to "Make" your own SBR/SBS on an ATF form 1.

It's the same process though. Same CLEO sign off or Trust and the same $200. And you cannot start "Fabrication" until you get your stamp back. (Currently 8-12 months.)

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf

RayMich

10-15-2013, 12:28 AM

Revdrshad

10-15-2013, 12:49 AM

Does this bill redefine the method for measuring the overall length of the firearm so that it is the same as Federal law?

IOW, does it define the OAL as measured with the gun in its longest configuration, with stock unfolded or expanded?

As it is right now, in his March 20, 1985 Opinion, anti-gun former AG Frank Kelley defined a gun to be an SBR or SBS if the OAL is less than 26 inches with the stock contracted or folded. Federal law determines OAL with the stock expanded or unfolded.

If Kelley's interpretation is allowed to stand, we will end up with some shotguns and rifles with OAL less than 26 inches when measured according to Kelley's definition, to be illegal in this state, since Federal law does not consider them to be SBR or SBS and the ATF will not issue their approval/stamp.

This could end up being another fiasco like Michigan's prohibition of air rifles with integral sound suppressors like the Gamo Whisper air rifles, because the ATF does not consider air rifles to be firearms, so they will not issue their approval for an air rifle with integral sound suppressor.

1.
Definitions.
a. National Firearms Act (NFA). Title 26, United States Code, Chapter 53. The implementing regulations are found in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 479.
b. Gun Control Act (GCA). Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 44. The implementing regulations are found in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 478.
c. Firearm. The term “firearm” means: (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 5845(e); (6) a machinegun; (7) a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and (8) a destructive device.

This is directly from the ATF's Form 1 instruction form... I'm not sure if this helps answers your question or not. I think what you were citing was a response concerning "Michigan Pistols." (Which Senate bill 760 cleared up.)
You will note, however, it appears to be a moot point, as the overall length will still be less than 26".

In My opinion, a SBR/SBS will have a buttstock (Foldable or not) and a barrel length less than 16"/18" So even if you measured if with the buttstock extended, if the barrel was less than 16"/18" it would count as a SBR/SBS... Or, if you measure it folded and the barrel is less than 16"/18" it still counts as a SBR/SBS.
Any other confusion seems to be clarified with the Fed's definition of an AOW. Which Michigan doesn't have any additional restrictions on.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(k13u1v55h1gliw45ubgbel55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0760

Kaeto

10-15-2013, 03:18 AM

He did that At the Bacon Library in Wyandotte about a year ago. I posted it on here for everybody else.

Unfortunately, I was not able to make this one.

All my responses from him have been very anti gun also.

He's having these every month at places in the district he represents.

GarrettJ

10-15-2013, 05:25 AM

As it is right now, in his March 20, 1985 Opinion, anti-gun former AG Frank Kelley defined a gun to be an SBR or SBS if the OAL is less than 26 inches with the stock contracted or folded....
If Kelley's interpretation is allowed to stand, we will end up with some shotguns and rifles with OAL less than 26 inches when measured according to Kelley's definition, to be illegal in this state, since Federal law does not consider them to be SBR or SBS and the ATF will not issue their approval/stamp.
That is a separate issue, and one that we already have to deal with. There are currently a number of rifles with 16" or longer barrels that are legal under federal law, but that would be considered SBRs under MI law.

And while I agree that AG Kelley's ruling needs to be done away with, I don't know if adding it to this law will help us or hurt us. Does SB610 stand a greater or lesser chance of passage by adding a "how to measure" provision?

Roadblock

10-15-2013, 06:58 AM

I am not a lawyer Or class 3 dealer... But,

I believe you may be able to "Make" your own SBR/SBS on an ATF form 1.

It's the same process though. Same CLEO sign off or Trust and the same $200. And you cannot start "Fabrication" until you get your stamp back. (Currently 8-12 months.)

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf

Which makes this about worthless if that is the case to many of us.

Our CLEO will NOT sign off. In fact he has gotten together with other CLEO's in the area who were originally willing to sign off and convinced them NOT to sign. A Trust is the only way you get a suppressor here.

That said with this new Executive Order making it a requirement to have a CLEO sign off, picture, prints and back ground even for a Trust, this is going to screw most honest people who just want fun toys and never intend to commit crimes with them.

So basically when all is said and done, I'd have to move to get an SBR.

luckless

10-15-2013, 07:04 AM

That is a separate issue, and one that we already have to deal with. There are currently a number of rifles with 16" or longer barrels that are legal under federal law, but that would be considered SBRs under MI law.

And while I agree that AG Kelley's ruling needs to be done away with, I don't know if adding it to this law will help us or hurt us. Does SB610 stand a greater or lesser chance of passage by adding a "how to measure" provision?
Or would it be easier to overturn Kelly's opinion (and all gun owners benefit) without trying to change the class III minutia?

GarrettJ

10-15-2013, 07:59 AM

Or would it be easier to overturn Kelly's opinion (and all gun owners benefit) without trying to change the class III minutia?
That was what I was getting at. Both would be good to get (legalize SBR/SBS and overturn Kelleys ruling), but they may stand a better chance of passing as stand-alone changes vs. tying the two together.

Shyster

10-15-2013, 04:40 PM

Blackwood Arms

10-15-2013, 05:24 PM

That's great news, lets hope it goes through the house.

durus5995

10-15-2013, 07:05 PM

Roundballer

10-15-2013, 09:00 PM

Today I attended the Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill. The AG's Office testified in favor and the MSP position was neutral.

Two entities, MGO and the NRA appeared speaking in support of the bill. MCRGO attended in the form of Brady Schickinger but did not testify. Several individuals attended and spoke in favor as well.

At the end of testimony the committee voted UNANIMOUSLY in support of SB 610 and recommended immediate approval. The bill now goes to the full house for a vote.
We appreciate the update, but let's rephrase that last line.

The bill now goes to the full Senate for a vote.

Even though this is just about as fast as a bill can make it through, it still has to make ALL of the stops along the way. If the audience does not know the process, saying things the wrong way gets confusing.

The committee analysis was added too:

2013 SB 0610 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28tzdttl451vfn4445hmmawdyk%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-SB-0610)

Revdrshad

10-16-2013, 07:43 AM

Which makes this about worthless if that is the case to many of us.

Our CLEO will NOT sign off. In fact he has gotten together with other CLEO's in the area who were originally willing to sign off and convinced them NOT to sign. A Trust is the only way you get a suppressor here.

That said with this new Executive Order making it a requirement to have a CLEO sign off, picture, prints and back ground even for a Trust, this is going to screw most honest people who just want fun toys and never intend to commit crimes with them.

So basically when all is said and done, I'd have to move to get an SBR.

As it stands right now, the Executive Order does not carry the weight of law. (As I understand it)
It's more of a public statement from Obama.

Maybe someone with more info can chime in...

BOSS302

10-16-2013, 08:18 AM

lawmangr

10-16-2013, 08:36 AM

I could be very wrong here but I thought the change in the requirements for trusts was just from the BATFE and was not through any executive order from Obama. Also, I didn't hear about adding the CLEO signature just the pix and prints. Can anyone clarify?

It's important to note that these changes that many are referring to have not taken affect, they are not law. They are proposed changes. I can't remember when the open comment period expires on the notice of proposed rulemaking, but it would be good to let your Congress-critters that you adamantly oppose the proposed changes.

Buffman

10-16-2013, 10:17 AM

Reply from my district

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on firearm legislation. I realize the issue of gun rights in the United States and Michigan will continue to be the subject of debates and I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts.
I have always been a supporter of all rights guaranteed in the Constitution, including the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns. My votes have consistently reflected that. I supported two bills introduced earlier this term that seek to maintain the rights of gun owners here in Michigan, and I recently supported Senate Bill 610 in committee. It now goes to the full Senate for consideration. SB 610 would bring Michigan in line with other states by allowing law-abiding citizens to own short barrel rifles and shotguns.

Once more, thank you for contacting me. Hearing from individuals like you allows me to better represent the people of my district. I encourage you to share your thoughts with me on any future legislation.

Sincerely,

Tonya Schuitmaker

Tallbear

10-16-2013, 10:20 AM

jmonarch

10-16-2013, 10:47 AM

My Senator supports this legislation.

Dear jmonarch:
Thank you for contacting my office regarding Senate Bill 610.
I support this piece of legislation, as it would bring Michigan Law in line with Federal guidelines.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important topic with me.
Sincerely,

Rick Jones
State Senator
District 24

Divegeek

10-16-2013, 10:50 AM

The analysis file makes me believe that the registration aspect that Q and I were discussing earlier would only be applicable if the SBR/SBS fell under the definition of a pistol so it wouldn't really be adding much more to the state registration.

Shyster

10-16-2013, 10:55 AM

An SBR/SBS would fall under the Michigan definition of "pistol," registered as such and would IN ALL ASPECTS be considered a pistol under MI law.

jesuvuah

10-16-2013, 01:47 PM

Sounds like good news if it can get passed. I think I would still hang onto my pistol lower though.

Corpsie

10-16-2013, 03:32 PM

An SBR/SBS would fall under the Michigan definition of "pistol," registered as such and would IN ALL ASPECTS be considered a pistol under MI law.

So we would have to get a tax stamp and do the RI60?

Would that also mean that, within the confines of Michigan, the SBR/SBS could be carried if one has an MI CPL?

kbdm

10-16-2013, 04:21 PM

Would that also mean that, within the confines of Michigan, the SBR/SBS could be carried if one has an MI CPL?

I have a feeling that is why Shyster capitalized "IN ALL ASPECTS" in his post.

GarrettJ

10-16-2013, 06:03 PM

An SBR/SBS could fall under the Michigan definition of "pistol,"...
Just because it is an SBR or SBS does not automatically make it fit the definition of a pistol under state law. The SBS I owned prior to moving to MI had an overall length of 34.5". It had a 14" barrel, but would not meet the state definition of a pistol unless I removed the buttstock.

madmathew

10-16-2013, 07:57 PM

So we would have to get a tax stamp and do the RI60?

Would that also mean that, within the confines of Michigan, the SBR/SBS could be carried if one has an MI CPL?

Looks like it would and that means you could carry it in the car too.

Shyster

10-16-2013, 09:25 PM

I didn't realize that "IN ALL ASPECTS" was in any way unclear.

Corpsie

10-17-2013, 09:40 AM

I didn't realize that "IN ALL ASPECTS" was in any way unclear.

I just prefer to have it spelled out since the idea of getting a tax stamp and pistol registration seems silly.

Tallbear

10-17-2013, 10:20 AM

Bill Poynter

10-17-2013, 11:35 AM

I was in Lansing and testified in support of this. Make sure you contact your reps and ask them to support thosact to align Mi law with Federal law.

madmathew

10-17-2013, 12:01 PM

I was in Lansing and testified in support of this. Make sure you contact your reps and ask them to support thosact to align Mi law with Federal law.

What are your feelings about how this going? Did they seem receptive to this?

mmissile

10-17-2013, 01:49 PM

If this does pass, what would be the steps to building one?[AR15 based]

Deadmeat3344

10-17-2013, 01:58 PM

If this does pass, what would be the steps to building one?[AR15 based]

1.Build ar pistol
2. register receiver as sbr
3. upon completion of NFA process replace pistol tube with CAR tube and apply stock of choice (probably shouldn't have those parts lying around prior to process completion as it could qualify as constructive possession)
4. profit

Bill Poynter

10-17-2013, 03:16 PM

I think that with active support contacting your reps there is a good chance. But it is imperitive to call and urge them to support this.

Garymac

10-18-2013, 08:03 AM

nevermind

thedonn007

10-18-2013, 12:21 PM

So, it looks like SBR's are now legal in Michigan?

Shyster

10-18-2013, 12:27 PM

So, it looks like SBR's are now legal in Michigan?
Not yet hopefully soon

thedonn007

10-18-2013, 12:52 PM

Not yet hopefully soon

What is the next step in the process? The state congress needs to approve it?

Shyster

10-18-2013, 12:55 PM

What is the next step in the process? The state congress needs to approve it?
Mike nailed it:

SB 0610 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-SB-0610)
Weapons; firearms; manufacture, possession, or transfer of certain short-barreled shotguns or rifles; allow. Amends sec. 224b of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.224b).
Last Action: 10/17/2013 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

Early stages but this should end up on Governor Snyder's desk soon.

Senator Green's staff is working hard on pro-2A legislation. I had a very productive meeting last week.

Divegeek

10-18-2013, 04:17 PM

What is the next step in the process? The state congress needs to approve it?
The next step is that it must be passed by the state senate. Then after that it must go to the committee in the house. They must pass it before it can go to the whole house. Then the whole house must vote to pass it. Finally after that we need to convince our antigun RINO NERD of a governor to sign it.

Don't get me wrong, I think it will make it the governors desk rather quickly in relative terms to normal gun legislation, but that could still a few months away. As for Snyder signing it, I put that as a 50-50 chance.

RayMich

10-18-2013, 05:05 PM

1.
Definitions.
a. National Firearms Act (NFA). Title 26, United States Code, Chapter 53. The implementing regulations are found in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 479.
b. Gun Control Act (GCA). Title 18, United States Code, Chapter 44. The implementing regulations are found in Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 478.
c. Firearm. The term “firearm” means: (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 5845(e); (6) a machinegun; (7) a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and (8) a destructive device.

This is directly from the ATF's Form 1 instruction form... I'm not sure if this helps answers your question or not. I think what you were citing was a response concerning "Michigan Pistols." (Which Senate bill 760 cleared up.)
You will note, however, it appears to be a moot point, as the overall length will still be less than 26".

In My opinion, a SBR/SBS will have a buttstock (Foldable or not) and a barrel length less than 16"/18" So even if you measured if with the buttstock extended, if the barrel was less than 16"/18" it would count as a SBR/SBS... Or, if you measure it folded and the barrel is less than 16"/18" it still counts as a SBR/SBS.
Any other confusion seems to be clarified with the Fed's definition of an AOW. Which Michigan doesn't have any additional restrictions on.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(k13u1v55h1gliw45ubgbel55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2011-SB-0760
Did you look at Frank Kelley's 1985 opinion?

Opinion No. 6280
March 20, 1985

A rifle with a barrel of at least 16 inches in length and a stock capable of being contracted or folded to an overall length of less than 26 inches, being fully operable in such contracted or folded condition, is a ‘short-barreled rifle’ whose sale or possession is prohibited.

A shotgun with a barrel of at least 18 inches in length and a stock capable of being contracted or folded to an overall length of less than 26 inches, being fully operable in such contracted or folded condition, is a ‘short-barreled shotgun’ whose sale or possession is prohibited.

Frank J. Kelley
Attorney General
Look it up and you will see that it is about determining the OAL for Short Barrel Rifles and Short Barrel Shotguns and it differs from Federal law.

Here, I got the link for you.
http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1980s/op06280.htm

Revdrshad

10-18-2013, 06:13 PM

Did you look at Frank Kelley's 1985 opinion?

Look it up and you will see that it is about determining the OAL for Short Barrel Rifles and Short Barrel Shotguns and it differs from Federal law.

Here, I got the link for you.
http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1980s/op06280.htm

Ray,

I may be mistaken, but with Senate bill 760 of 2011, The "less than 30 inch" requirement that was the AG's opinion back then should now be considered null and void. And now carries the weight of law. (All laws associated with S.B. 760 of 2011).

But, Either way, If it's meant to be "Fired from the shoulder" and still has a barrel length less than 16/18" it would be considered a SBR/SBS. Whether it's overall is under 26" or not.

pustulio

10-18-2013, 09:48 PM

sub'd. Id love the option to build/buy an SBS/SBR

luckless

10-19-2013, 05:03 AM

Senator Green's staff is working hard on pro-2A legislation. I had a very productive meeting last week.

Anything in the works for us non class III types?

sasha601

10-19-2013, 11:25 AM

Which makes this about worthless if that is the case to many of us.

Our CLEO will NOT sign off. In fact he has gotten together with other CLEO's in the area who were originally willing to sign off and convinced them NOT to sign. A Trust is the only way you get a suppressor here.

That said with this new Executive Order making it a requirement to have a CLEO sign off, picture, prints and back ground even for a Trust, this is going to screw most honest people who just want fun toys and never intend to commit crimes with them.

So basically when all is said and done, I'd have to move to get an SBR.

I am not aware about Executive Order that requires LEOs to sign BATFE form even if done via Trust. Can you provide link/reference please?

RayMich

10-19-2013, 02:26 PM

Ray,

I may be mistaken, but with Senate bill 760 of 2011, The "less than 30 inch" requirement that was the AG's opinion back then should now be considered null and void. And now carries the weight of law. (All laws associated with S.B. 760 of 2011).

But, Either way, If it's meant to be "Fired from the shoulder" and still has a barrel length less than 16/18" it would be considered a SBR/SBS. Whether it's overall is under 26" or not. Well, apparently you still did not read Frank Kelley's opinion in the link I posted above.

SB 760 did NOT address the method for measuring a long gun's OAL.

Part of Kelley's opinion was about an UZI carbine, legal everywhere except in Michigan because its contracted length is LESS THAN 26 inches...

"You have requested my opinion on two questions relating to certain firearms. Examples of the types of firearms at issue include the UZI semiautomatic carbine rifle (barrel length--16.1 inches; length with stock contracted--24.4 inches; length with stock expanded--31.5 inches);...

[...]

"It is noted that the UZI semiautomatic carbine rifle is a short-barreled rifle since it is capable of being contracted to an overall length of 24.4 inches and is fully operable in this condition.
" According to Federal law, the above mentioned UZI is NOT an SBR and does NOT require the NFA stamp, so the ATF will not get involved with it. However, using Kelley's definition for measuring OAL with the stock folded or contracted, that UZI carbine is considered an SBR in Michigan and since the ATF does not consider it to be an SBR it will not issue an NFA stamp for it. Therefore, unless Kelley's opinion gets overturned, that UZI as well as similar rifles and shotguns will always be illegal in Michigan even though they would be legal everywhere else.

Revdrshad

10-19-2013, 05:18 PM

Well, apparently you still did not read Frank Kelley's opinion in the link I posted above.

SB 760 did NOT address the method for measuring a long gun's OAL.

Part of Kelley's opinion was about an UZI carbine, legal everywhere except in Michigan because its contracted length is LESS THAN 26 inches...

According to Federal law, the above mentioned UZI is NOT an SBR and does NOT require the NFA stamp, so the ATF will not get involved with it. However, using Kelley's definition for measuring OAL with the stock folded or contracted, that UZI carbine is considered an SBR in Michigan and since the ATF does not consider it to be an SBR it will not issue an NFA stamp for it. Therefore, unless Kelley's opinion gets overturned, that UZI as well as similar rifles and shotguns will always be illegal in Michigan even though they would be legal everywhere else.

Ray,
Please accept my apologies, I did read it, but must have been getting confused myself.

I do see what you mean now. That is a strange loophole that does indeed need to be addressed.
I'm going to look through some of the MCLs and see what's up with this.

Roundballer

10-19-2013, 10:15 PM

Just write to your Senator. I am killing two birds with one stone here, my Senator is a co-sponsor.

The Honorable Senator, Phillip Pavlov;

Dear Sir;

Thank you for your co-sponsorship of the bill SB 0610. Your support of the shooting sportsmen of Michigan is truly appreciated.

I wish to bring to your attention an issue that arises with this bill, and the possible future ownership of these firearms in Michigan.

Michigan currently does not have a codified definition of the method used to obtain the overall length of 26 inches that is used in several of our laws. We have been operating from AG Frank J Kelley's opinion number 6280. A lot of this opinion was rendered moot by the passage of several bills last December, reducing the length of a rifle or shotgun to 26 inches from 30 inches. If I may snip portions of text from that document:

"You have requested my opinion on two questions relating to certain firearms. Examples of the types of firearms at issue include the UZI semiautomatic carbine rifle (barrel length--16.1 inches; length with stock contracted--24.4 inches; length with stock expanded--31.5 inches);...

[...]

"It is noted that the UZI semiautomatic carbine rifle is a short-barreled rifle since it is capable of being contracted to an overall length of 24.4 inches and is fully operable in this condition."

This is all that is relied upon for making any determination of the legal length of a firearm. The problem arises from the fact that the BATF has a codified method that does not match ours.

The BATF uses a definition, and I paraphrase "measured between the extremes along a line parallel to the axis of the bore of the fully extended firearm".

You can see that the difference between the two will cause some problems. The UZI in the question of the AG's opinion is considered to be just a rifle by the BATF, but it would be a "short barreled rifle" under Michigan’s purview. The BATF would not issue an NFA stamp for such a firearm, because it is not an NFA item. Therefore, no one in Michigan could own one, because Michigan would consider it to be a short barreled rifle.

I will suggest, and plead that this be resolved. An additional line in the definitions of MCL 750.222, as:

(l) "overall length" means the length of the assembly between the extremes, measured along a line parallel to the axis of the bore of the fully open and extended firearm.

Would bring us right in line with Federal regulations, and there would be no more ambiguity in the definitions.

Thank you again, for your support, and for your time and consideration.

Roundballer.

Revdrshad

10-20-2013, 01:54 AM

Just write to your Senator. I am killing two birds with one stone here, my Senator is a co-sponsor.

Thank you, Roundballer!! :cheers:

May we copy and paste your letter to our respective Senators?

Divegeek

10-20-2013, 06:55 AM

Nicely crafted letter Roundballer

71commander

10-20-2013, 07:16 AM

Well, apparently you still did not read Frank Kelley's opinion in the link I posted above.

According to Federal law, the above mentioned UZI is NOT an SBR and does NOT require the NFA stamp, so the ATF will not get involved with it. However, using Kelley's definition for measuring OAL with the stock folded or contracted, that UZI carbine is considered an SBR in Michigan and since the ATF does not consider it to be an SBR it will not issue an NFA stamp for it. Therefore, unless Kelley's opinion gets overturned, that UZI as well as similar rifles and shotguns will always be illegal in Michigan even though they would be legal everywhere else.

Somehow I managed to buy an UZI with a folding stock. I bought it about 10 years ago. I did have to register it as a pistol though. It was grandfathered in as a pistol when the MI law changed last Jan. If I ever sell it, the new owner could never register it as a pistol.

Roundballer

10-20-2013, 10:55 AM

Thank you, Roundballer!! :cheers:

May we copy and paste your letter to our respective Senators?

Sure, go ahead. Just, if your Senator is not one of the co-sponsors, change that first sentence to urge support, rather than thank him for support that he has already shown. :coffee:

kbdm

10-20-2013, 11:46 AM

Shyster

10-20-2013, 11:49 AM

AG opinions do not carry the force of law while US Code definitions do.

Shyster

10-20-2013, 11:50 AM

Anything in the works for us non class III types?
Yes.

RockinRiley

10-20-2013, 02:11 PM

I received notice of this through NRA-ila, but it sure sounded like a short barrel needs a 200 buck stamp!

kbdm

10-20-2013, 02:15 PM

I received notice of this through NRA-ila, but it sure sounded like a short barrel needs a 200 buck stamp!

Yes they do.

SteveS

10-20-2013, 03:27 PM

RayMich

10-20-2013, 03:40 PM

In regards to the AG opinion being discussed, can the present AG, if he were inclined to do so, issue an opinion and override the one from 1985?

A short barreled weapon is an NFA firearm because the barrel is short. Not the reciever, not the stock.

Nothing else should matter but barrel length.

Or is this too simple an answer?
Not quite. It is NOT that simple.

The overall length of the rifle or shotgun must also be considered.

It is my understanding that a rifle with a barrel equal to or longer than 16 inches, as well as a shotgun with a barrel equal to or longer than 18 inches, but with an OVERALL LENGTH LESS THAN 26 inches in their fully extended configuration, are considered a SBR or SBS according to Federal law and require the $200 tax stamp from the ATF.

kbdm

10-20-2013, 04:51 PM

It is my understanding that a rifle with a barrel equal to or longer than 16 inches, as well as a shotgun with a barrel equal to or longer than 18 inches, but with an OVERALL LENGTH LESS THAN 26 inches in their fully extended configuration, are considered a SBR or SBS according to Federal law and require the $200 tax stamp from the ATF.

You're right. The NFA does cover the overall length.

As far as the AG opinion on how to measure the overall length, that could be changed (and should be) by the current AG to bring Michigan in line with Federal standards.

Reading the State law, MCL 750.222 Definitions (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(gsvqxyjpw1o4ap55edchsgrg))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-222) does not mention a method for measurement.

I sure do hope this passes.

Edit to add: The definition of overall is what is misinterpreted in the current opinion.

From Merriam-Webster:
over·all adverb \ : with everyone or everything included

Full Definition of OVERALL
1: all over 1 <the pattern used overall>
2: from one end to the other <600 feet long overall>
3a : in view of all the circumstances or conditions <overall, the sale was a success>
3b : as a whole : generally <doesn't do as well overall>
3c : with everyone or everything taken into account <was third overall in earnings> <got 31 miles to the gallon overall>

3c is the key. If you want the overall length of an extension ladder, do you measure it collaped or extended?

SteveS

10-20-2013, 05:21 PM

Most states follow the federal method for measuring OAL.

RayMich

10-20-2013, 09:27 PM

Most states follow the federal method for measuring OAL.
Exactly!

To my knowledge, Michigan is the only state that measures OAL with the gun in its shortest configuration due to the 1985 opinion by extremely anti-gun Frank Kelley.

It sure would be great if the current AG changes that. It would be easier and faster than writing a new law.

RayMich

10-20-2013, 09:30 PM

Ray,
Please accept my apologies, I did read it, but must have been getting confused myself.

I do see what you mean now. That is a strange loophole that does indeed need to be addressed.
I'm going to look through some of the MCLs and see what's up with this.
Not a problem.

I am simply trying to ensure that we all are on the same page about this.

I have not found any MCL that addresses how the "legal" overall length of a gun is determined.

GarrettJ

10-21-2013, 05:41 AM

It is my understanding that a rifle with a barrel equal to or longer than 16 inches, as well as a shotgun with a barrel equal to or longer than 18 inches, but with an OVERALL LENGTH LESS THAN 26 inches in their fully extended configuration, are considered a SBR or SBS according to Federal law and require the $200 tax stamp from the ATF.
If you read the federal or state definitions of an SBR / SBS, you will note that the 26" measurement only comes into play if the firearm is a weapon "made from a rifle/shotgun..." and, "...as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches." 18USC921(a)(8 ) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921)

The implication is that you can get a factory-produced rifle with a 16" barrel and an OAL of less than 26", and still not be an SBR, as this would not have been "modified".

In Kelley's opinion letter, he makes the argument that the act of extending / collapsing the buttstock constitutes "modifying" the firearm, therefore the 26" rule applies. This is a bunch of hooey, and I think anyone with a basic reading comprehension would agree. But that was the work-around he came up with to get the ruling he wanted.

I think it would stand a decent chance of being overruled in court, but I would't want to be the one footing the bill. Otherwise, I've got a Norinco underfolder that measures around 24.5" when folded, that I'd love to bring into MI some time.

GarrettJ

10-21-2013, 05:48 AM

RayMich

10-21-2013, 01:49 PM

Actually, SB610 may take care of the sub-26" issue as well. It states that a short-barreled rifle (as defined by MI law) would be legal if the firearm was "lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law."

Since the feds measure in the longest configuration, a gun that folds to less-than 26" is still "lawful... under federal law".

So MI still defines a 16" barrel and an OAL less than 26" when folded as an SBR, and the feds don't. Since the feds just consider it a "rifle", you can possess it as any other rifle, and you are in compliance with the feds. The state still considers it an SBR, but it would be legal here as it complies with Fed regs. Now just comply with the MI Pistol registration law, and you're covered.
Just because something might be legal under Federal law, doesn't mean it is legal in all states. States currently have the ability to make gun laws that are stricter than Federal law. I sure am not going to want to be a test case regarding a grey area like you are describing. We need a clear and unambiguous definition as to how the OAL should be measured that is in line with Federal law.

GarrettJ

10-21-2013, 04:52 PM

Just because something might be legal under Federal law, doesn't mean it is legal in all states. States currently have the ability to make gun laws that are stricter than Federal law. I sure am not going to want to be a test case regarding a grey area like you are describing. We need a clear and unambiguous definition as to how the OAL should be measured that is in line with Federal law.
I agree with you about taking the cautious approach (for example, see my post a couple above yours.)

But it appears this law could make the whole ambiguous measurement method irrelevant.

A state can absolutely pass a law that is more restrictive than federal law. But SB610 removes that issue. It says that if the rifle is legally possessed under federal law, it is legal in MI. Federal law defines how they measure a firearm. So if he Feds are good with it by their standard, SB610 says MI is good with it too.

We recently got rid of "MI pistols". This law would create a similar unique class of firearm: the "MI SBR", where a rifle with a 16" barrel and a collapsed length less than 26" is an SBR under state law, but not under federal law. And like the "MI pistol", these would also meet the definition of a pistol, could be carried with a CPL, etc.

Buffman

10-21-2013, 10:44 PM

Tallbear

10-22-2013, 10:43 AM

RayMich

10-23-2013, 12:34 AM

Mlive posting:

http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/michigan_senate_panel_approves_2.html

The article seems to try to mislead you into thinking making your own (once approved) is not legal, but we know that's not the case, since on a federal level you can manufacture your own pending approval.
This article says...

"Robert Ianni of the Michigan Attorney General's Office,... pointed out that sawed-off shotguns would still be prohibited under Green's legislation, which the attorney general's office supports."
But when I read the bill here SB 0610 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-SB-0610) I find nothing that says that a short barrel shotgun would still be prohibited by this bill as long as the "firearm is lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law."

I sure hope we don't find out that we are getting blindsided by an AG who dislikes short barrel shotguns.

Shyster

10-23-2013, 06:20 AM

This article says...

But when I read the bill here SB 0610 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-SB-0610) I find nothing that says that a short barrel shotgun would still be prohibited by this bill as long as the "firearm is lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law."

I sure hope we don't find out that we are getting blindsided by an AG who dislikes short barrel shotguns.
You could not possibly be more wrong about Bill Schuette.

As I said before Frank Kelly's opinion was non-binding. IMO you are WAY over-analyzing this.

Divegeek

10-23-2013, 08:07 AM

We all know that reporters are total idiots when it comes to guns and that the misquote people and take things out of context all the time. Shuette's staffer was probably explaining that gang bangers still won't be able to just saw the barrel off of a shotgun and be legal. Mr. Reporter not knowing that legally there isn't a difference between a "sawed off" shotgun and a "short barreled" shotgun just condensed it down to "still can't have sawed off shotguns".

A simple reading of the bill shows that SBS's will be just fine.

Buffman

10-23-2013, 02:02 PM

RayMich

10-23-2013, 08:30 PM

You could not possibly be more wrong about Bill Schuette.

As I said before Frank Kelly's opinion was non-binding. IMO you are WAY over-analyzing this.
I sure hope you are right.

I am not saying that Bill Schuette is for or against SBRs or SRSs. I was simply commenting on the statement made in the above article by this Mr. Robert Ianni of the Michigan Attorney General's Office. Staffers can and do affect their boss's decisions and we can't count on Snyder to be on our side. But I hope Schuette is above all that and does the right thing convincing Snyder to sign the bill once it gets to his desk.

Thanks for your comments.

248 Shooter

10-24-2013, 09:20 AM

We contacted ours and shared this with our Facebook fans and Blog readers.

RDak

10-27-2013, 05:30 AM

I am glad to see my senator (Colbeck) supports this bill and I contacted him giving him my support.

It is about time this law was changed.

blackarsenal

10-29-2013, 02:57 PM

I spoke to Senator Green's office yesterday and this bill has been stopped cold. It was cruising thru on a fast track and something stopped it dead. No updates on why as of yet. Senator Green's office said they are investigating. PLEASE contact your local represenatives NOW to get this moving. Huge benefit to the state citizenry and its SOT gun shop owners. PLEASE CALL TODAY!

luckless

10-29-2013, 03:32 PM

"and its SOT gun shop owners."

SOT?

pustulio

10-29-2013, 03:33 PM

SOT?
SOT??

Coctailer

10-29-2013, 03:41 PM

He meant NFA dealers.

They pay a Special Occupational Tax (SOT)

Deadmeat3344

10-29-2013, 03:42 PM

SOT??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Occupational_Taxpayers

Special Occupational Taxpayers are a group of Federal Firearm Licensees in the USA who manufacture, import and/or transfer NFA weapons.[1] The National Firearms Act Special Occupational Taxpayer class is part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

The Special Occupational Tax is due on or before July 1 of each year. The tax rate for every importer and manufacturer is $1,000 per year or part of a year. The tax rate for each dealer is $500 a year or part of a year. Importers and manufacturers engaged in business with less than $500,000 in gross receipts in the most recent taxable year are given relief in the form of a $500 reduction in SOT tax payment making the total SOT tax $500.[2] In addition to the SOT tax, all importers and manufacturers must pay an annual Excise tax to the Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) for firearms imported or manufactured for re-sale. The excise tax applies only when the quantity of firearms imported or manufactured during the year is 50 or more.[3]..........CLICK LINK ABOVE FOR REST

luckless

10-29-2013, 03:49 PM

Thank you.

pustulio

10-29-2013, 03:49 PM

ya thx for the link

lawmangr

10-30-2013, 02:45 PM

I wrote to my Senator (Janson) and received the following reply:

Hello, Mr. ______________,

Thank you for your email. I appreciate it, and understand how important this issue is to you.

SB610 was sent to the floor of the senate less than two weeks ago. It is not delayed. Typically, bills referred from committee take between six weeks and three months to be considered by the whole senate. At this time, this bill is moving along at a normal schedule and pace.

It is normal for a bill to not be voted on for several weeks or months as the sponsor moves to answer questions, and gain the support of his colleagues for the measure.

Kind Regards,

Michael Moloney
Director, Constituent Services
Office of Senator M.Jansen
S-310 Capitol Building, Lansing
(517) 373 0797

I wrote a reply thanking him. His reply back was genuine and asked me to make sure to let him know if I didn't see movement within a few weeks, as he could tell I was following it. Overall, pretty impressed.

I'm happy to share my original email to the Senator if anyone thinks it will help them write/send their own.

71commander

10-30-2013, 03:03 PM

Thanks lawmangr

RayMich

10-31-2013, 11:00 AM

thedonn007

10-31-2013, 11:37 AM

If in fact this bill has been 'stopped cold' I would not be surprised if Snyder had a hand at stopping it.

Why would Snyder want to stop it? What difference would it make to him?

Roundballer

10-31-2013, 11:58 AM

Could the name "Randy Richardville" have anything to do with it?

It seems to me that other bills that we needed and wanted, got "renegotiated" before they were read a third time and voted on.

Then again, maybe they are trying to work out the OAL measurement issue. That should get amended into this bill before it goes to the House.
As far as I can see, all we can do is contact our Senators, and ask for their support.

jts_01

10-31-2013, 12:16 PM

I'm happy to share my original email to the Senator if anyone thinks it will help them write/send their own.

If you could share that would be great

lawmangr

10-31-2013, 02:29 PM

If you could share that would be great

Sure thing. Short and sweet.

Dear Senator Jansen,

Good afternoon! As one of your constituents, I want to thank you for your service and for standing up for our rights. I recently found out that SB 610 (Green) has been stalled in the State Senate for no apparent reason. This bill is not only critical to our Constitutional (State and Federal) right to bear arms, but also brings our state law in line with the existing Federal law. I'm hoping there is something you and your colleagues might be able to do to move it forward to a vote. Can you help?

Thank your for your time and service.

jts_01

10-31-2013, 06:10 PM

Sure thing. Short and sweet.

Dear Senator Jansen,

Good afternoon! As one of your constituents, I want to thank you for your service and for standing up for our rights. I recently found out that SB 610 (Green) has been stalled in the State Senate for no apparent reason. This bill is not only critical to our Constitutional (State and Federal) right to bear arms, but also brings our state law in line with the existing Federal law. I'm hoping there is something you and your colleagues might be able to do to move it forward to a vote. Can you help?

Thank your for your time and service.

Thanks! I sent something similar off to my senator.

SteveS

10-31-2013, 07:43 PM

If in fact this bill has been 'stopped cold' I would not be surprised if Snyder had a hand at stopping it.

I am not a fan of Snyder, but what I have heard suggests that he would sign this bill.

madmathew

11-01-2013, 03:11 PM

Sure thing. Short and sweet.

Dear Senator Jansen,

Good afternoon! As one of your constituents, I want to thank you for your service and for standing up for our rights. I recently found out that SB 610 (Green) has been stalled in the State Senate for no apparent reason. This bill is not only critical to our Constitutional (State and Federal) right to bear arms, but also brings our state law in line with the existing Federal law. I'm hoping there is something you and your colleagues might be able to do to move it forward to a vote. Can you help?

Thank your for your time and service.

I used your letter to send another email to my Senator.

RayMich

11-02-2013, 03:03 PM

Why would Snyder want to stop it? What difference would it make to him?
When it comes to guns, Snyder is not our friend.

Last December he bowed to NYC Mayor 'Bloomers' demands and vetoed a bill that would've allowed many CPL holders to legally carry in PFZ's.

Rod M1

11-03-2013, 06:53 PM

Is there still time to get a vote? I see its moving up slowly. Will this have to be passed this year or this bill dies in committee?

Roundballer

11-03-2013, 08:44 PM

No, it does not die until the Legislature recesses in December of 2014. Our legislative sessions are two years long.

Something may still happen on this, yet this year. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

This bill is about more than just firearms, it is also about jobs and tax revenue.

Article IV § 13 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Article-IV-13)

Sec. 13.

The legislature shall meet at the seat of government on the second Wednesday in January of each year at twelve o'clock noon. Each regular session shall adjourn without day, on a day determined by concurrent resolution, at twelve o'clock noon. Any business, bill or joint resolution pending at the final adjournment of a regular session held in an odd numbered year shall carry over with the same status to the next regular session.

RayMich

11-04-2013, 08:29 AM

This bill is about more than just firearms, it is also about jobs and tax revenue.
THIS will be the cupcake that gets it past Snyder and we must emphasize it as much as possible. He has great hopes that job creation will help him in his re-election campaign. We will see.

Sclark

11-04-2013, 03:09 PM

My reply from Senator Jansen's aide a few weeks ago stated that the senator was undecided on this issue as of yet.

I strongly suggest others out there write their state senators.

Rod M1

11-04-2013, 06:16 PM

My reply from Senator Jansen's aide a few weeks ago stated that the senator was undecided on this issue as of yet.

I strongly suggest others out there write their state senators.

Interesting I haven't had a reply from him yet. Instead he forewords my email to another rep. The good thing is he wonts to vote on it.

bradymsu

11-08-2013, 03:26 PM

J. Browne

11-08-2013, 08:18 PM

Just emailed my senator, hope this ends up passing.

Roundballer

11-08-2013, 08:51 PM

It's running this coming Wednesday in the full Senate before that chamber leaves for the deer hunting opener. Please e-mail your state senator this weekend regardless of party. Note that it passed out of committee on a 4-0 vote. It would be great to see this go to Snyder yet this year. http://www.senate.michigan.gov/fysenator/fysenator.htm
It is still in "General Orders" in the agenda for the 12th. Do you have some inside information that it is going to jump into "Third Reading" and be brought up in one day?

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28512wffb1jrsfw4buklonvdbb%29%29/documents/2013-2014/Calendar/Senate/htm/2013-sc-11-12-094.htm

jts_01

11-13-2013, 06:52 PM

looks like it made it through the next step

Roundballer

11-13-2013, 07:28 PM

It is still in "General Orders" in the agenda for the 12th. Do you have some inside information that it is going to jump into "Third Reading" and be brought up in one day?

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28512wffb1jrsfw4buklonvdbb%29%29/documents/2013-2014/Calendar/Senate/htm/2013-sc-11-12-094.htm
Holly-Smoke, It has jumped to third reading.

It is now item #13 on the calendar for Thursday the 14th.

Calendar-Senate - 2013-11-14 #096 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2013-SC-11-14-096)

Kaeto

11-13-2013, 07:47 PM

Swell just the day before I was going to get to meet with Senator Hopgood.

David in MI

11-14-2013, 11:38 AM

Holly-Smoke, It has jumped to third reading.

It is now item #13 on the calendar for Thursday the 14th.

Calendar-Senate - 2013-11-14 #096 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28bycp4beaih5rd0450tgnoq45%29%29/documents/2013-2014/Calendar/Senate/htm/2013-SC-11-14-096.htm)

Link not working

Roundballer

11-14-2013, 12:10 PM

Link not working
Fixed it, they are using some kind of dynamic addressing that I didn't see before.

pustulio

11-14-2013, 12:13 PM

11/14/2013 Expected in
SJ 96 PASSED ROLL CALL # 538 YEAS 36 NAYS 2 EXCUSED 0 NOT VOTING 0

Nic

11-14-2013, 01:14 PM

Awesome. Looks like it's up for first reading in the house now.

Roundballer

11-14-2013, 01:20 PM

11/14/2013 Expected in
SJ 96 PASSED ROLL CALL # 538 YEAS 36 NAYS 2 EXCUSED 0 NOT VOTING 0
WHOO-WHOO!

It has also already been received in the house!

11/14/2013 Expected in HJ 100 read a first time

It will be assigned to a committee, then we start the writing campaign all over again.

pustulio

11-14-2013, 01:22 PM

WHOO-WHOO!

It has also already been received in the house!

11/14/2013 Expected in HJ 100 read a first time

It will be assigned to a committee, then we start the writing campaign all over again.

seems to be busseling right along

bradymsu

11-14-2013, 02:34 PM

It is still in "General Orders" in the agenda for the 12th. Do you have some inside information that it is going to jump into "Third Reading" and be brought up in one day?

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28512wffb1jrsfw4buklonvdbb%29%29/documents/2013-2014/Calendar/Senate/htm/2013-sc-11-12-094.htm

Roundballer, sorry, I hadn't been on MGO's forum until today. Yes, there was a private commitment from Senate leadership to Green/MCRGO to run it yesterday on second reading and pass it out before they left today. Let's do a coordinated MGO & MCRGO campaign for the Monday when they come back pushing for immediate passage before Christmas. Good?

Roundballer

11-14-2013, 03:33 PM

Roundballer, sorry, I hadn't been on MGO's forum until today. Yes, there was a private commitment from Senate leadership to Green/MCRGO to run it yesterday on second reading and pass it out before they left today. Let's do a coordinated MGO & MCRGO campaign for the Monday when they come back pushing for immediate passage before Christmas. Good?
Yes, VERY good.

Do you know what committee this will be assigned to in the House?

We can get started early with composing messages to the Committee, and our Reps.

bradymsu

11-14-2013, 04:06 PM

Yes, VERY good.

Do you know what committee this will be assigned to in the House?

We can get started early with composing messages to the Committee, and our Reps.

I was told this morning it would be House Judiciary. Expected. Obviously a mixed track record from them so far this session. I wish conservative legislators would focus more on representing gun owners rather than protecting their governor.

Buffman

11-14-2013, 04:08 PM

Fred Upton's contact form, doesn't seem to have a category for this. Maybe under Defense/National Security?

bradymsu

11-14-2013, 04:26 PM

Fred Upton's contact form, doesn't seem to have a category for this. Maybe under Defense/National Security?

This is Michigan legislation. Upton is the United States representative for Southwest Michigan. He doesn't have a vote on it.

Rod M1

11-14-2013, 07:14 PM

Where can you look up your Rep voting record?

GarrettJ

11-14-2013, 08:29 PM

Where can you look up your Rep voting record?

The following was posted at Arfcom (http://www.ar15.com/forums/manageReply.html?a=quote&b=8&f=39&t=540857&r=5939982&page=5):

Originally Posted By dclark77:
Here is the vote :

Roll Call No. 538 Yeas—36
Ananich
Green
Jones
Proos
Anderson
Gregory
Kahn
Richardville
Bieda Hansen
Kowall
Robertson
Booher
Hildenbrand
Marleau
Rocca
Brandenburg
Hood
Meekhof
Schuitmaker
Casperson
Hopgood
Moolenaar
Smith
Caswell
Hune
Nofs
Walker
Colbeck
Hunter
Pappageorge
Whitmer
Emmons
Jansen
Pavlov
Young

Nays—2
Johnson
Warren

SuedePflow

11-14-2013, 08:41 PM

I'm so excited for this to (hopefully) finally pass!

I can't wait to assemble a suppressed SBR.

Buffman

11-14-2013, 11:20 PM

This is Michigan legislation. Upton is the United States representative for Southwest Michigan. He doesn't have a vote on it.

LOL, I'm a dork. Wrong rep :)

Roundballer

11-15-2013, 03:08 PM

I was told this morning it would be House Judiciary. Expected. Obviously a mixed track record from them so far this session. I wish conservative legislators would focus more on representing gun owners rather than protecting their governor.
It has been sent to the House Judiciary Committee. And you are not kidding, they are sitting on so many bills it is mind boggling.

Committee Bill Records Search (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28pvgy5y55dxpgneyl314qtbj1%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=CommitteeBillRecordSearch&committeeid=4242&chamber=House)

SB 610 is near the bottom of that list.

Here is the Committee Home page: http://house.michigan.gov/MHRPublic/CommitteeInfo.aspx?comkey=232.

The list of the Committee members is on the right near the top, their names link to their pages, and contact info should be there. I'll work on that.

A barrage of messages pushing the importance of this bill to our economy might help to get them moving.

Kevin Cotter (R) Committee Chair, 99th District
Klint Kesto (R) Majority Vice-Chair, 39th District
Kurt Heise (R) 20th District
Bradford Jacobsen (R) 46th District
Joel Johnson (R) 97th District
Andrea LaFontaine (R) 32nd District
Tom Leonard (R) 93rd District
Phil Cavanagh (D) Minority Vice-Chair, 10th District
Ellen Lipton (D) 27th District
Jeff Irwin (D) 53rd District
Paul Clemente (D) 14th District
_____________________________
Angie Lake, Committee Clerk
517-373-5795

Kaeto

11-15-2013, 05:08 PM

I thanked Sen Hopgood for voting for it today.

Dansjeep2000

11-28-2013, 09:23 PM

Let's make sure we keep the letter writing up on this guy's

..
Daddy needs an SBR...

Roundballer

11-29-2013, 01:17 AM

Back in post #115, I posted the letter that I sent my Senator (one of the sponsors). I post that again so that you don't have to find it again.

The Honorable Senator, Phillip Pavlov;

Dear Sir;

Thank you for your co-sponsorship of the bill SB 0610. Your support of the shooting sportsmen of Michigan is truly appreciated.

I wish to bring to your attention an issue that arises with this bill, and the possible future ownership of these firearms in Michigan.

Michigan currently does not have a codified definition of the method used to obtain the overall length of 26 inches that is used in several of our laws. We have been operating from AG Frank J Kelley's opinion number 6280. A lot of this opinion was rendered moot by the passage of several bills last December, reducing the length of a rifle or shotgun to 26 inches from 30 inches. If I may snip portions of text from that document:

"You have requested my opinion on two questions relating to certain firearms. Examples of the types of firearms at issue include the UZI semiautomatic carbine rifle (barrel length--16.1 inches; length with stock contracted--24.4 inches; length with stock expanded--31.5 inches);...

[...]

"It is noted that the UZI semiautomatic carbine rifle is a short-barreled rifle since it is capable of being contracted to an overall length of 24.4 inches and is fully operable in this condition."

This is all that is relied upon for making any determination of the legal length of a firearm. The problem arises from the fact that the BATF has a codified method that does not match ours.

The BATF uses a definition, and I paraphrase "measured between the extremes along a line parallel to the axis of the bore of the fully extended firearm".

You can see that the difference between the two will cause some problems. The UZI in the question of the AG's opinion is considered to be just a rifle by the BATF, but it would be a "short barreled rifle" under Michigan’s purview. The BATF would not issue an NFA stamp for such a firearm, because it is not an NFA item. Therefore, no one in Michigan could own one, because Michigan would consider it to be a short barreled rifle.

I will suggest, and plead that this be resolved. An additional line in the definitions of MCL 750.222, as:

(l) "overall length" means the length of the assembly between the extremes, measured along a line parallel to the axis of the bore of the fully open and extended firearm.

Would bring us right in line with Federal regulations, and there would be no more ambiguity in the definitions.

Thank you again, for your support, and for your time and consideration.

Roundballer.

To date, I have received four (4) responses to that note. The first one was an automated response that sounded like a "blow off", they didn't even get my name into the message.

Thank you for contacting me. Serving the people of Michigan's 25th District is my highest priority as a State Senator.

Most people contact their elected officials either to comment on specific legislation or to offer general feedback and ask general questions. If your email is about a specific legislative proposal, please include the bill number or sponsor's name to help us identify your area of interest. As a legislative courtesy, we allow other Senators the opportunity to respond to their own constituents. If you reached my office but live in another district, I will respectfully refer your email to your State Senator so he or she can serve you.

My staff and I are committed to listening to the questions and concerns of Lapeer and St. Clair County residents. Responding to every person who asks us for help is an enormous task, and I certainly cannot do the job alone. My dedicated staff and I personally respond to all incoming messages. Because it may take some time to research your question, it may be a day or two before you receive another response.

I am honored to represent the people of the 25th District. Thank you for your email.

Sincerely,

Phil Pavlov
Michigan State Senator - 25th District
Lapeer and St. Clair County
www.SenatorPhilPavlov.com

Note that I did refer to the bill in the first sentence, it was also in the header of what I sent.

The second reply at least acknowledged that they read my note:

Mr. Roundballer

I was forwarded the email you had sent to Senator Pavlov in regards to your concerns with SB 610. I wanted to let you know that we have received your concerns and we are working with the bill sponsors office, Senator Green, to address the issues you stated. Once I have something more concrete from Senator Greens office, as far as a fix, I will contact you.

In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me as I have happy to assist with this issue!

Matt Evans
Legislative Director
Senator Phil Pavlov

The third note gives me hope that they are listening and that they might act upon the issue that I pointed out:

Mr. Roundballer,

I have an update for you already on this issue. Senator Green has spoken with the Attorney General’s office as well as the NRA and they have both agreed that the best course of action in regards to the issue you brought up would be to issue a new AG opinion. In order for this to be fixed legislatively it would require a separate bill amending another part of the statute. There worry is this would hold up SB 610 and further complicate getting this passed.

So, they have a commitment from the Attorney General’s office to a re-write of Opinion 6280 to account for these concerns after SB 610 becomes law. They have also committed to including our office on this request and keeping us in the know on the process so that we can keep you informed.

If you have any questions or want to discuss this further please do not hesitate to contact me. I will be in touch as this process gets underway so that you can stay in the loop.

Matt Evans
Legislative Director
Senator Phil Pavlov
That gives me high hopes that a big chunk of this "26 in" BS is going to go away.

The final note was back to the "form letter". They are keeping me "informed", (like I was not watching this to begin with).

Please do not reply to this message. To contact Senator Pavlov please click HERE.

Dear Mr. Roundballer:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Senate Bill 610, which I was proud to co-sponsor with Senator Mike Green (R-Mayville). I appreciate your comments and concerns as we move forward building a better Michigan.

This piece of legislation would allow a person to possess, make, manufacture, transfer, or possess a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun as long as the firearm is considered lawful under federal law.

According to testimony provided by Mr. Robert Ianni of the Michigan Attorney General's Office during the committee process, short-barreled guns were originally banned around the time of Prohibition due to the fear that they could be concealed from law enforcement.Currently,forty-one other states allow possession of short-barreled guns.

This bill passed the Michigan Senate on November 14, 2013, by a 36-2 vote, and now goes to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. Please do so again in the future.

Sincerely,

Phil Pavlov
State Senator
District 25

Oh, and that "prohibition" nonsense.... The NFA was done in that time period. Michigans' law, right from the section that they are changing:
History: Add. 1978, Act 564, Imd. ***. Dec. 29, 1978 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 196, ***. Jan. 7, 2009

GarrettJ

11-29-2013, 12:14 PM

I tend to agree with Sen. Pavlov's legislative director in that trying to add verbiage at this point to specify how a firearm is to be measured would tend to slow the whole process down, and that it should be addressed separately.

And as I noted in post #132, SB610 largely makes the state method of measuring irrelevant. It states that a short-barreled rifle (as defined by MI law) would be legal if the firearm was "lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law." So even if the firearm is less than 26" when folded, if it is just a "rifle" under federal law (and therefore legally possessed), it would still be legal under MI law.

Take the Uzi rifle example: The firearm has a 16" barrel and is just a Title I rifle under federal law. When the buttstock is folded, it has an overall length of 24.4". If SB610 goes into effect and the state still measures by the shortest configuration, the Uzi rifle would meet the MI definition of an SBR. But at the same time, the feds measure in the longest configuration. So they consider the Uzi to be a rifle, and can be possessed by anyone who is not otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm. Additionally, it would not require any NFA registration, since it is not an NFA firearm. Since it would be "lawfully... possessed under federal law", it would be legal to possess in MI.

What you end up with is something similar to a "MI Pistol". We would have a new class of "MI SBR".

It would be an SBR under state law only. Since it is shorter than 26", it would meet the state definition of a "pistol" as well, and would need to comply with all of the current pistol requirements. No additional registration would be required on the state (or federal) level.

Roundballer

11-29-2013, 01:55 PM

I tend to agree with Sen. Pavlov's legislative director in that trying to add verbiage at this point to specify how a firearm is to be measured would tend to slow the whole process down, and that it should be addressed separately.
I also agree. It is just part of the way that I learned to handle things. One doesn't just come up with issues/problems and dump them on someone else. Identify the issue/problem and at least make a suggestion for a solution.

And as I noted in post #132, SB610 largely makes the state method of measuring irrelevant. It states that a short-barreled rifle (as defined by MI law) would be legal if the firearm was "lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law." So even if the firearm is less than 26" when folded, if it is just a "rifle" under federal law (and therefore legally possessed), it would still be legal under MI law.That is still open/subject to interpretation as long as we are operating under the previous AG opinion.

Take the Uzi rifle example: The firearm has a 16" barrel and is just a Title I rifle under federal law. When the buttstock is folded, it has an overall length of 24.4". If SB610 goes into effect and the state still measures by the shortest configuration, the Uzi rifle would meet the MI definition of an SBR. But at the same time, the feds measure in the longest configuration. So they consider the Uzi to be a rifle, and can be possessed by anyone who is not otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm. Additionally, it would not require any NFA registration, since it is not an NFA firearm. Since it would be "lawfully... possessed under federal law", it would be legal to possess in MI.

What you end up with is something similar to a "MI Pistol". We would have a new class of "MI SBR".

It would be an SBR under state law only. Since it is shorter than 26", it would meet the state definition of a "pistol" as well, and would need to comply with all of the current pistol requirements. No additional registration would be required on the state (or federal) level.
One of these two lines of thought could be the way the new AG opinion goes. He could also go with one or the other.

If they want to keep the number of these rifles that can be carried loaded in a vehicle down, they will open up how they are measured. That will keep them out of the pistol registry.

They could also go the other way, and create another class of "registrable" firearms.

Either way would be acceptable to me. I just don't like the gray areas that are created by having to "interpret" a law into the real world. It also seems that no matter what they do, it will be better than what we have now.

GarrettJ

11-29-2013, 02:20 PM

And as I noted in post #132, SB610 largely makes the state method of measuring irrelevant. It states that a short-barreled rifle (as defined by MI law) would be legal if the firearm was "lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law." So even if the firearm is less than 26" when folded, if it is just a "rifle" under federal law (and therefore legally possessed), it would still be legal under MI law.

That is still open/subject to interpretation as long as we are operating under the previous AG opinion.
What part seems ambiguous to you? As noted, SB610 would pretty well negate AG Kelley's opinion anyway. Even with that opinion in force, a sub-26" rifle would be legal under the proposed law.

Kelley stated that the firearm should be measured in the shortest shootable configuration, and so if it could be shortened to less than 26", it would be an SBR in his opinion, which is in violation of current state law.

But if SB610 makes SBRs (as defined by MI law) legal to possess if allowed under fed law, that would then include Title I rifles that could be collapsed to less than 26".

IOW, if it's good with the feds, it would be good with the state if SB610 passes.

If there is a gray area, please point it out to me.

Roundballer

11-29-2013, 04:08 PM

The ambiguity is very plain. Which Federal Law? Our proposed law doesn't say, so it is left up to interpretation.

Sec. 224b.
(1) A person shall not make, manufacture, transfer, 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 a firearm that is lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law.
(4) A person, excluding a manufacturer, lawfully making, transferring, or possessing a firearm under this section shall comply with section 2 or 2a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422 and 28.422a.
(5) Section 20 of chapter 16 of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 776.20, applies to this subsection (3).

MCL 776-20 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-776-20)

Sec. 20.

In any prosecution for the violation of any acts of the state relative to use, licensing and possession of pistols or firearms, the burden of establishing any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in any such act shall be upon the defendant but this does not shift the burden of proof for the violation.
Proving that you meet the exception falls on you.
MCL 750-222 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-222)

<snip>
(i) "Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having 1 or more barrels less than 18 inches in length or a weapon made from a shotgun, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if the weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

<snip>
(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 less than 26", as measured by the current AG opinion, you may have to defend yourself in court.

If you cannot perceive the pitfall, I can't help you.

GarrettJ

11-29-2013, 05:26 PM

The ambiguity is very plain. Which Federal Law? Our proposed law doesn't say, so it is left up to interpretation...

Alright, you are correct that the proposed law does not specify which federal law the firearm would have to "made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under". So sure, I'll concede a small ambiguity there.

Barring a specific reference in our proposed law, I think it would be prudent to consult the federal laws that regulate firearms. I would suggest starting with 18 USC 921 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921), and 26 USC 5845 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845).

27 CFR 479.11 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2006-title27-vol2/pdf/CFR-2006-title27-vol2-sec479-11.pdf) then clarifies: "The overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore." (emphasis added). "Extreme ends" would be the farthest possible points from each other - hence the longest, or most extreme measurement possible. ATF has taken the position that this means the measurement is taken with the firearm extended to its longest possible configuration.

So to use AG Kelley's Uzi rifle example again, can you point out where in those federal laws (or any other federal laws) the Uzi rifle is not legal? Does any federal law state that a folding-stocked Uzi rifle, in its factory original configuration, is not legal?

If there is no law that makes it illegal, it is then legal to own, possess, etc. etc. And once again, SB 610 states a short-barreled rifle or shotgun would be legal if it is "lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law."

So I'll ask a specific question: what federal law do you (Roundballer) think makes an Uzi rifle illegal?

Roundballer

11-29-2013, 08:27 PM

Alright, you are correct that the proposed law does not specify which federal law the firearm would have to "made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under". So sure, I'll concede a small ambiguity there.
The ambiguity is there. I suggested ONE solution to my Senator. The Senators' Legislative Director responded with another perfectly viable solution. I hope that they run with it.

Barring a specific reference in our proposed law, I think it would be prudent to consult the federal laws that regulate firearms. I would suggest starting with 18 USC 921 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921), and 26 USC 5845 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845).

27 CFR 479.11 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2006-title27-vol2/pdf/CFR-2006-title27-vol2-sec479-11.pdf) then clarifies: "The overall length of a weapon made from a shotgun or rifle is the distance between the extreme ends of the weapon measured along a line parallel to the center line of the bore." (emphasis added). "Extreme ends" would be the farthest possible points from each other - hence the longest, or most extreme measurement possible. ATF has taken the position that this means the measurement is taken with the firearm extended to its longest possible configuration.
Without reference to a specific law, Michigans' laws will be applied first. It will still be up to the defendant to show that the ambiguous language creates the exception. It can be argued both ways.

So to use AG Kelley's Uzi rifle example again, can you point out where in those federal laws (or any other federal laws) the Uzi rifle is not legal? Does any federal law state that a folding-stocked Uzi rifle, in its factory original configuration, is not legal?

If there is no law that makes it illegal, it is then legal to own, possess, etc. etc. And once again, SB 610 states a short-barreled rifle or shotgun would be legal if it is "lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law."
We are still stuck with AG Kelleys' opinion on the method of measurement. The Senator, and his Legislative Director seem to get the point. I am sure that they would have fully blown me off if I didn't have a valid concern.

So I'll ask a specific question: what federal law do you (Roundballer) think makes an Uzi rifle illegal?
There is no Federal Law that makes that Uzi illegal. But as it stands, that doesn't make it legal under Michigan law.

GarrettJ

11-29-2013, 09:57 PM

There is no Federal Law that makes that Uzi illegal. But as it stands, that doesn't make it legal under Michigan law.

THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO A FIREARM THAT IS LAWFULLY MADE, MANUFACTURED, TRANSFERRED, OR POSSESSED UNDER FEDERAL LAW.

I am comfortable with that logic. Of course, SB610 is not the law of the land yet, so this is still just an academic discussion.

And of course, nobody is going to force you to go and possess anything you are not comfortable with.

Now with that said I wish you the best and hope you enjoy the rest of your Thanksgiving weekend. I do always appreciate your well thought out comments, even when we don't always agree.

Roundballer

11-29-2013, 10:59 PM

There is enough of a concern that the COSPONSOR of the bill acknowledged it. I am comfortable with THAT.

Without SOMETHING further (an AG opinion would work), the law as it stands may just be confirmed in court. Are you volunteering?

kbdm

11-30-2013, 07:58 AM

The ambiguity is there. I suggested ONE solution to my Senator. The Senators' Legislative Director responded with another perfectly viable solution. I hope that they run with it.

And that is all that needs to happen to solve this issue. An AG opinion reversing the current method of measurement should be done regardless of passage of SB610 just so everyone is on the same page, plain and simple.

In hindsight ( I have learned alot from this thread on the history of Michigan SBR/SBS law and the AG opinion), this should have been done a lot sooner.

luckless

11-30-2013, 08:54 AM

And that is all that needs to happen to solve this issue. An AG opinion reversing the current method of measurement should be done regardless of passage of SB610 just so everyone is on the same page, plain and simple.

In hindsight ( I have learned alot from this thread on the history of Michigan SBR/SBS law and the AG opinion), this should have been done a lot sooner.
What would prevent the AG from changing his opinion right now, if that is the sticking point? Does he have to wait for a new law before he offers the new opinion?

bradymsu

12-01-2013, 08:36 AM

The Michigan House of Representatives is set to return this week for a short two week December session. Pending in the House is consideration of SB 610, passed by the Senate last month, which would legalize short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns. Please e-mail House Judiciary Chair Rep. Kevin Cotter today at: KevinCotter@house.mi.gov and ask that he schedule this bill for committee consideration this week.

Quaamik

12-01-2013, 04:57 PM

message sent

bradymsu

12-02-2013, 08:31 PM

Unfortunately, it looks like House Judiciary is focusing on marijuana this week rather than guns.

smac61

12-02-2013, 10:01 PM

Unfortunately, it looks like House Judiciary is focusing on marijuana this week rather than guns.

BSOESfsNd4w

Dansjeep2000

12-02-2013, 10:31 PM

Email sent

LibertyComrade

12-03-2013, 10:25 AM

Unfortunately, it looks like House Judiciary is focusing on marijuana this week rather than guns.

More freedom is more freedom.

Dansjeep2000

12-03-2013, 10:28 AM

More freedom is more freedom.
True however I think most people here care more about 2A rights.

bradymsu

12-03-2013, 11:45 PM

More freedom is more freedom.

The House Judiciary Committee's attention to marijuana is for increased regulation of medical marijuana not loosening restrictions.

Nic

12-04-2013, 01:28 AM

Email sent

LibertyComrade

12-04-2013, 03:39 PM

The House Judiciary Committee's attention to marijuana is for increased regulation of medical marijuana not loosening restrictions.

I was under the impression it was to create a legal framework to allow for medicinal marijuana dispensaries, something that was blockaded by some recent court rulings.

durus5995

12-05-2013, 05:18 PM

I just read this on the MDFI Alum Facebook page. Someone talked to the committee head.

"B610 update: SB610 will not be addressed by the House Judiciary Committee this year. The soonest will be January.
I talked directly with the Committee Clerk just now.

Tuesday’s Meeting is the last of the year.
"

JDHuff185

12-06-2013, 12:50 AM

kbdm

12-06-2013, 08:07 AM

So infuriating. What is there to talk about?
Stamp it yes and send it on.

Roundballer

12-06-2013, 02:28 PM

Flash-hider

12-06-2013, 04:25 PM

Are any of the House Judiciary Committee up for election in '14?

Yes they are. All 110 Representatives of the House are.

luckless

12-06-2013, 06:26 PM

Are any of the House Judiciary Committee up for election in '14?

Maybe we need to let them know that we want this, it will be good for Michigan, and good for the economy. We want this passed now, or we start campaigns to find Representatives that WILL support us.
I don't think this change will effect enough people to start a movement like that. I am willing to vote them out, however, because they have done NOTHING for us and I don't see anything on the horizon. I will not accept their "vote for us in Nov and we'll pass the good stuff in Dec" line of BS. They need to know we want meaningful, progun legislation signed by the governor before November in order to get our support.

Roundballer

12-06-2013, 08:24 PM

I don't think this change will effect enough people to start a movement like that. I am willing to vote them out, however, because they have done NOTHING for us and I don't see anything on the horizon. I will not accept their "vote for us in Nov and we'll pass the good stuff in Dec" line of BS. They need to know we want meaningful, progun legislation signed by the governor before November in order to get our support.
That is the part that I am getting at. Let them know that they NEED to support us first, then, we support them. Else, we find someone that makes the same useless promises that are being made now and put them in office, as long as that person doesn't have a track record of breaking those promises.

Look, this "term limit" thing that we have is just a shell game that they play, we need NEW people. My last Senator is now a Representative in another district. He was term limited out of running for the same Senate seat again.

Dansjeep2000

12-06-2013, 10:17 PM

Just sent another strongly worded email letting mr. Cotter know if this doesn't pass he will not have my support come November.

Rod M1

12-07-2013, 06:31 AM

It has been sent to the House Judiciary Committee. And you are not kidding, they are sitting on so many bills it is mind boggling.

Committee Bill Records Search (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28pvgy5y55dxpgneyl314qtbj1%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=CommitteeBillRecordSearch&committeeid=4242&chamber=House)

SB 610 is near the bottom of that list.

Here is the Committee Home page: http://house.michigan.gov/MHRPublic/CommitteeInfo.aspx?comkey=232.

The list of the Committee members is on the right near the top, their names link to their pages, and contact info should be there. I'll work on that.

A barrage of messages pushing the importance of this bill to our economy might help to get them moving.

Kevin Cotter (R) Committee Chair, 99th District
Klint Kesto (R) Majority Vice-Chair, 39th District
Kurt Heise (R) 20th District
Bradford Jacobsen (R) 46th District
Joel Johnson (R) 97th District
Andrea LaFontaine (R) 32nd District
Tom Leonard (R) 93rd District
Phil Cavanagh (D) Minority Vice-Chair, 10th District
Ellen Lipton (D) 27th District
Jeff Irwin (D) 53rd District
Paul Clemente (D) 14th District
_____________________________
Angie Lake, Committee Clerk
517-373-5795

Whose looking for this OP should add this into the first post. Anyone have a letter they can post?

BridgeBuilder

12-07-2013, 05:12 PM

snyder is a liar and a dirty snake in the grass. Will never get any support of any kind from me and I will look down on anybody who votes for him. He was bought by special intrest and he dont give two ***** about me or you. People who vote for him are just as bad as those that vote for fienstein and bloomberg :chainsaw: :chainsaw: :chainsaw: :chainsaw:

Rod M1

12-10-2013, 05:23 PM

Dansjeep2000

12-11-2013, 01:08 PM

I received an Email from one of the House Judiciary Committee members and they are expecting the committee to review it in 2014. Keep sending the letters especially to the committee chair at this point.
We all need to commit to sending at least 1 email a week to Mr Cotter so he knows we're serious.

pustulio

12-11-2013, 01:17 PM

We all need to commit to sending at least 1 email a week to Mr Cotter so he knows we're serious.

+1

Dansjeep2000

12-11-2013, 01:32 PM

I am serious now is the time to stick together and make sure he knows we want this.

Jared1981

12-11-2013, 06:46 PM

Dansjeep2000

12-11-2013, 09:17 PM

Don't waste your time writing or calling anyone. No one has the balls to do what is necessary in 2014. If some gun owners did, we would solve this problem. But so many people won't because they have to be a slave to the GOP
So your solution is to do nothing? ? EVERYONE needs to be calling and let them know we want this. They need to hear our voice. ..If we're loud enough they will listen.

Jared1981

12-11-2013, 09:52 PM

So your solution is to do nothing? ? EVERYONE needs to be calling and let them know we want this. They need to hear our voice. ..If we're loud enough they will listen.

My solution, is to vote democrat next election for the house and governor.

I don't care how bad they are. Keep the senate republican but after the house and governor goes dem, they won't take gun owners for granted next session.

Nothing else will work ....being loud enough won't do anything, they hear your voice... Hey just don't care because many gun owners are ding dongs who will vote republican anyway so why should they care to appease gun owners if they will vote for them anyway?

Roundballer

12-11-2013, 10:52 PM

My solution, is to vote democrat next election for the house and governor.

I don't care how bad they are. Keep the senate republican but after the house and governor goes dem, they won't take gun owners for granted next session.

Nothing else will work ....being loud enough won't do anything, they hear your voice... Hey just don't care because many gun owners are ding dongs who will vote republican anyway so why should they care to appease gun owners if they will vote for them anyway?
So, your solution for what we currently have, people that are taking us for granted, is to put a bunch of people in there that will actively work against us.

Sounds like a good plan to me. :facepalm:

Jared1981

12-12-2013, 01:08 AM

So, your solution for what we currently have, people that are taking us for granted, is to put a bunch of people in there that will actively work against us.

Sounds like a good plan to me. :facepalm:

It's better than whining on the Internet which is all people in Michigan seem to be good at doing. That or open carry dinners at the same diner over and over and over.

Only a handful of people have really done anything else.

I don't plan to stay in Michigan for the rest of my life so I won't have to deal with it.

But yes, I am voting democrat for governor because Snyder is a piece of garbage and the trash is stinking up the street corner.

If you noticed, with the senate staying republican anti gun bills wouldn't be passing as you fear anyway, besides, many Dems are pro gun in MI.

Roundballer

12-12-2013, 02:10 AM

It's better than whining on the Internet which is all people in Michigan seem to be good at doing. That or open carry dinners at the same diner over and over and over.
It seems that this next quote is the whining, every one else is encouraging participation to keep the attention on the issue:

Don't waste your time writing or calling anyone. No one has the balls to do what is necessary in 2014. If some gun owners did, we would solve this problem. But so many people won't because they have to be a slave to the GOP
blue

Only a handful of people have really done anything else.
And with a little encouragement, a few more will make an effort.

I don't plan to stay in Michigan for the rest of my life so I won't have to deal with it.
So don't F'it up for the rest of us. Lead, Follow, or get the F out of the way.

But yes, I am voting democrat for governor because Snyder is a piece of garbage and the trash is stinking up the street corner.
That is just about the most foolish thing I have heard in quite a while. You are going to declare that you are going to vote a party line, regardless. Don't you think that you should at least wait until there is a specific individual as a candidate before you make such a decision? You do know that the entire democratic Kilpatrick family is not in jail.....yet.

If you noticed, with the senate staying republican anti gun bills wouldn't be passing as you fear anyway, besides, many Dems are pro gun in MI.
Anti-gun bills might not pass, but there certainly won't be any progress in the effort to get a lot the problems we have now fixed either. And that "pro-gun Democrat" thing, there are just enough of them that you can not say that they are all antis, which is a far cry from "many"

Jared1981

12-12-2013, 02:26 AM

It seems that this next quote is the whining, every one else is encouraging participation to keep the attention on the issue:

blue

And with a little encouragement, a few more will make an effort.

So don't F'it up for the rest of us. Lead, Follow, or get the F out of the way.

That is just about the most foolish thing I have heard in quite a while. You are going to declare that you are going to vote a party line, regardless. Don't you think that you should at least wait until there is a specific individual as a candidate before you make such a decision? You do know that the entire democratic Kilpatrick family is not in jail.....yet.

Anti-gun bills might not pass, but there certainly won't be any progress in the effort to get a lot the problems we have now fixed either. And that "pro-gun Democrat" thing, there are just enough of them that you can not say that they are all antis, which is a far cry from "many"

Save the lead follow or get out of the way garbage. I've done PLENTY for 2A issues. I didn't "F up" Fletcher v Haas nor NRA v state of Washington, nor gendreau v canario.

For michigan specific, I've written many gun bills and things like knife preemption. Guess what, the gun group with the paid board members runs things, not the other two. Not to mention we even had idiot gun owners call and scream at reps over constitution carry.

Don't fool yourself over reinventing the wheel. Look at all the phone calls for SB 59.... Guess what?????? Most republicans in Michigan don't need You... They don't care about you.... Because they feel they do not have to earn your vote. Did you notice that SB 59 never go to the governors desk until the DAY it qualified for a pocket veto, do you think that was a coincidence???

So don't worry about not "****g" it up, it Already is. And anyone who has actually been to Lansing to meet with any of the pro gun reps or senators, they will tell you. I have, so I know, and so do others on here as well.

Roundballer

12-12-2013, 03:03 AM

A review of post history tells me a lot, this exchange is over.

Jared1981

12-12-2013, 01:33 PM

A review of post history tells me a lot, this exchange is over.

Glad you learned something about why there is no traction on any bills in Michigan. And I'm glad you see my frustration in why that is.

JDHuff185

12-18-2013, 03:43 PM

Back in post #115, I posted the letter that I sent my Senator (one of the sponsors). I post that again so that you don't have to find it again.

To date, I have received four (4) responses to that note. The first one was an automated response that sounded like a "blow off", they didn't even get my name into the message.

Note that I did refer to the bill in the first sentence, it was also in the header of what I sent.

The second reply at least acknowledged that they read my note:

The third note gives me hope that they are listening and that they might act upon the issue that I pointed out:
That gives me high hopes that a big chunk of this "26 in" BS is going to go away.

The final note was back to the "form letter". They are keeping me "informed", (like I was not watching this to begin with).

Oh, and that "prohibition" nonsense.... The NFA was done in that time period. Michigans' law, right from the section that they are changing:
History: Add. 1978, Act 564, Imd. ***. Dec. 29, 1978 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 196, ***. Jan. 7, 2009
It was always my understanding that the discrepancy in measuring methods wouldn't matter, as if you weren't braking any federal law, 610 made it lawful in MI, regardless of whether a tax stamp was issued. And even if it did specifically require registration under the NFA, you don't have to convert it to a federally defined NFA weapon, registration simply allows you to if you choose, and with the paperwork it would be lawful under this theoretical law.

StoneyBones

12-19-2013, 12:31 PM

I havent been following along...I have 1 question.

If this does pass, will my existing AR pistol be able to be configured as an SBR? Or must I start with "virgin" receiver?

kbdm

12-19-2013, 02:12 PM

If this does pass, will my existing AR pistol be able to be configured as an SBR?

Yes. I plan on doing the same with my Zastava PAP M92.

$200 for the stamp + price of the stock.

SuedePflow

12-19-2013, 02:14 PM

I havent been following along...I have 1 question.

If this does pass, will my existing AR pistol be able to be configured as an SBR? Or must I start with "virgin" receiver?
Yup. As it currently stands you can convert from pistol to rifle, but not rifle to pistol.

Maybe even that will change with new legislation.

JDHuff185

12-19-2013, 05:14 PM

Yup. As it currently stands you can convert from pistol to rifle, but not rifle to pistol.

Maybe even that will change with new legislation.
That is what it will do; converting from rifle to pistol won't make it legally a "handgun", it's "a weapon made from a rifle", which if under 26" OAL/16" BBL is an SBR regardless of stock presence. Unban SBR's, and rifle-to-pistol is legal with the paperwork

JDHuff185

12-19-2013, 05:57 PM

I havent been following along...I have 1 question.

If this does pass, will my existing AR pistol be able to be configured as an SBR? Or must I start with "virgin" receiver?
You register the pistol as an SBR with a form 1, the (lower in the case of the AR) receiver's serial # is recorded. That now-registered receiver is allowed to be used in the making of a weapon which would meet "short barreled rifle" definitions.

Funny thing about non-MG NFA's is the receiver itself, though it usually is the registered part with the serial #, isn't the regulated item; only the complete firearm is.

From the ATF's website:

Q: I possess a properly registered SBR or SBS. I intend to strip the receiver and remove the barrel prior to selling the receiver. Is the bare receiver still subject to regulation under the NFA as a SBR or SBS?

A stripped receiver without a barrel does not meet the definition of a SBR or SBS under the NFA. Although the previously registered firearm would remain registered unless the possessor notified the NFA Branch of the change, there is no provision in statute or regulation requiring registration of a firearm without a barrel because its physical characteristics would make it only a GCA “firearm” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B). If the subsequent owner buys the receiver as a GCA firearm and installs a barrel less than 16 inches in length (SBR) or 18 inches in length (SBS), the firearm would be subject to a $200 making tax and registration under the NFA by the manufacturer or maker of the SBR or SBS. Because registration depends upon the stated intent of the applicant, there is no provision to allow registration of a NFA firearm by anyone other than the maker or manufacturer.
So if you transfer the SBR in total, it requires transfer registration, but not if if it's just the receiver (or whatever part has the serial #).

If the subsequent owner buys the receiver as a GCA firearm and installs a [short barrel], the firearm would be subject to a $200 making tax and registration under the NFA
If you take out an SBR-registered receiver (or or whatever has the serial) and give it to someone, it'd be just like giving someone any other receiver. The SBR paperwork would still be in your name (you can notify the ATF to have them remove it, but it isn't mandatory. Wouldn't be different either way, you can't buy a new receiver after you dispose of the old one and use the new one as an SBR because the paperwork would have the old one's serial # on it) and that person would just have a "firearm" (as the receiver itself is defined as the firearm), which if they want to convert to an SBR, they'd have to do the manufacturing paperwork themselves. I believe you could do the paperwork as if you'd given them a whole firearm and only give them the receiver, and they could use the receiver in an SBR, although I am unsure of this.

I know you didn't ask for all that, just thought I'd put it out there. ;)

WARNING: THIS POST WAS NOT MADE BY A LAWYER, ATTORNEY, OR ANYONE QUALIFIED TO INTERPRET LAW. USING ANY OF MY ADVICE WITHOUT CONSULTING AN EXPERT IS ASKING FOR FELONY CHARGES IN DOUBLE-DIGIT QUANTITIES.

BMT85

12-20-2013, 12:35 PM

Yup. As it currently stands you can convert from pistol to rifle, but not rifle to pistol.

Maybe even that will change with new legislation.

Actually the law changed a couple years and the feds decided that you can change a rifle to a pistol if it originally started life as a pistol and you don't make an NFA weapon during the process. So an AR pistol (under 26") can be changed to a rifle and back to a pistol whenever you want, so long as you don't make an AOW or SBR during the change.

If you take a regular AR rifle and try to make a pistol out of it, it will then become an SBR.

Roundballer

12-20-2013, 01:49 PM

Actually the law changed a couple years and the feds decided that you can change a rifle to a pistol if it originally started life as a pistol and you don't make an NFA weapon during the process. So an AR pistol (under 26") can be changed to a rifle and back to a pistol whenever you want, so long as you don't make an AOW or SBR during the change.

If you take a regular AR rifle and try to make a pistol out of it, it will then become an SBR.
It was actually a SCOTUS decision, TC vs ATF, I think.

The Court decided that there was no law against making a pistol into a long gun, and then returning it to a pistol. TC was marketing a single shot break action, that came as a pistol, pistol grip and short barrel. In the package was also a longer barrel and a shoulder stock.

The Court ruled that as long as an NFA item was not assembled, the possession of the parts did not construe an illegal firearm. Unless of course, the ONLY thing that could be built from those parts was a illegal firearm. You are not allowed to assemble an NFA item without the tax stamp.

BMT85

12-20-2013, 02:19 PM

Thanks for the correction Roundballer. :thumbup:

GarrettJ

12-20-2013, 04:13 PM

Actually the law changed a couple years and the feds decided that you can change a rifle to a pistol...

It was actually a SCOTUS decision, TC vs ATF, I think.

The Court decided that there was no law against making a pistol into a long gun, and then returning it to a pistol...
You are both partially correct.

The syllabus for the SCOTUS case, United States vs. T/C, can be downloaded here (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/505/case.html). In this case, SCOTUS ruled that an NFA firearm is not "made" simply having the parts in close proximity, so long as there was a legitimate use for all of those parts. If you have a kit that can configure a firearm into either a rifle or a pistol, all is well as long as you do not configure the firearm with a short barrel and a buttstock at the same time (without going through the NFA hoops first, anyway).

The court only addressed the issue of possession of parts, and configuration of the firearm. They did not address the issue of re-configuring the firearm from pistol to rifle or rifle to pistol.

So where the definition of a short-barreled rifle includes any firearm "made from a rifle if such firearm has an overall length of less than 26 inches...", there would still exist the possibility of prosecution if someone were to take that kit, build a pistol, change to a rifle, and then change back to a pistol. Since the firearm at one point becomes a "rifle", any other configuration after that could be argued to be a firearm "made from a rifle".

Under such a charge, the defendent likely could successfully argue the re-configuration was legal, and the US vs. T/C ruling could be used as part of the argument. But there was no law or ruling stating this directly.

BMT85 is likely referring to ATF Ruling 2011-4 (http://www.atf.gov/files/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf). It is not an actual "change in law". Rather, it is an official interpretation of the law by ATF. Here, ATF clears the issue up, and directly states that you can take a pistol, turn it into a rifle, and change it back to a pistol without "making" an NFA firearm.