HB 4138, 4142 & 4143 of 2023 - Require license or background check for purchase of firearms

[PhotoTom]

Just wanted to clarify some things about this.

Was the RI-060 replaced by the Firearm Sales Record?

It was explained to me by a local FFL that if I'm a CPL holder and buying from a private party, that a copy of the FSR doesn't need to be mailed for long guns. Is that correct? And if so, what is the purpose of the FSR for a long gun private sale?

Is the exemption surrounding out of state CPL holders and pistol purchases done away with?

The RI-060 is still RI-060, but the title was changed.

The completed copy is not submitted for long guns (correct). The purpose is supposed to assure that all firearms purchasers are vetted with a background check.

Nothing changed regarding the out of state carry permit exemption. What changed is that the seller is now responsible for submitting the completed paperwork (for pistol purchases) and the seller is the one that is exposed to a $250 "ticket" (civil infraction fine) for not doing so when it is required...so uneducated sellers will likely NOT be willing to forego submitting the completed paperwork since they have nothing to loose by submitting it, but risk a $250 fine for not doing so (if it were required). Educated sellers will honor the exemption.

Reference:

Changes to Michigan Law Regarding Sales of Firearms MGO.pdf

[SuedePflow]

Thank you for the post. You answered my questions perfectly.

The completed copy is not submitted for long guns (correct). The purpose is supposed to assure that all firearms purchasers are vetted with a background check.

Regarding long gun sales when the purchaser is a CPL holder; If a copy of the FSR does not need to be submitted and no BG check is required because the CPL holder has been previously vetted, then what is the purpose of even filling out the FSR? Can't that just be skipped? Am I missing some purpose of the FSR in this specific instance?

[Corsten]

Thank you for the post. You answered my questions perfectly.


Regarding long gun sales when the purchaser is a CPL holder; If a copy of the FSR does not need to be submitted and no BG check is required because the CPL holder has been previously vetted, then what is the purpose of even filling out the FSR? Can't that just be skipped? Am I missing some purpose of the FSR in this specific instance?

The point is to acclimate to compliance with paperwork and registries for all firearms.

[PhotoTom]

Thank you for the post. You answered my questions perfectly.


Regarding long gun sales when the purchaser is a CPL holder; If a copy of the FSR does not need to be submitted and no BG check is required because the CPL holder has been previously vetted, then what is the purpose of even filling out the FSR? Can't that just be skipped? Am I missing some purpose of the FSR in this specific instance?

This bill was a rushed committee camel...not well thought out, so there are loose ends that were never buttoned-up.

In a strict reading of the law, as written, the SELLER is responsible to fill out the RI-060 for a CPL buyer/long gun sale. There is no records retention specified. There is no submittal required. IF the seller skips the RI-060 in this instance, they are still subject to a $250 civil infraction (ticket) (assuming the buyer wasn't exempt).

I can only think of two ways that the seller could get bitten for failure to fill-out a RI-060 for a CPL buyer/long gun sale...

1) The buyer (or a 3rd party) turns the seller in to LE and is willing to sign a complaint stating that the seller did not complete the required RI-060.

2) A sting operation

In either of the above cases, I cannot see LE devoting a minute of time to issuing a civil infraction ticket over this (let alone conducting a sting operation) unless there were other underlying factors and they have it out for the seller for other reasons.

A more likely thing would be for the lawmakers to further tweak the law to button up some of these loose ends, at minimum, adding a requirement to keep the completed RI-060 as proof of compliance (guilty until proven innocent). Or, they will just be happy that they are able to say, "WE DID SOMETHING!" to excite the anti-gun folks come election time.

[SuedePflow]

Makes perfect sense. Thanks again, PhotoTom.

[PatriotWholesale]

This bill was a rushed committee camel...not well thought out, so there are loose ends that were never buttoned-up.

In a strict reading of the law, as written, the SELLER is responsible to fill out the RI-060 for a CPL buyer/long gun sale. There is no records retention specified. There is no submittal required. IF the seller skips the RI-060 in this instance, they are still subject to a $250 civil infraction (ticket) (assuming the buyer wasn't exempt).

I can only think of two ways that the seller could get bitten for failure to fill-out a RI-060 for a CPL buyer/long gun sale...

1) The buyer (or a 3rd party) turns the seller in to LE and is willing to sign a complaint stating that the seller did not complete the required RI-060.

2) A sting operation

In either of the above cases, I cannot see LE devoting a minute of time to issuing a civil infraction ticket over this (let alone conducting a sting operation) unless there were other underlying factors and they have it out for the seller for other reasons.

A more likely thing would be for the lawmakers to further tweak the law to button up some of these loose ends, at minimum, adding a requirement to keep the completed RI-060 as proof of compliance (guilty until proven innocent). Or, they will just be happy that they are able to say, "WE DID SOMETHING!" to excite the anti-gun folks come election time.

I would think your first case is even a slippery slope as it's one person against another.

To Tom's point I don't see them doing much if anything. I think this is more of a "pat on the back" for them saying we did something.

The only way I see it is if a seller missed multiple and they did a sting and wrote a bunch of tickets.

As I have said preciously in other threads as well I feel bad for those that don't know as I would bet most don't know of the law changes (at least vast majority of our customers that come in don't know or some know that the laws changed but don't know how). The state has done a terrible job at any rollout measures (although I think that was intended).