Suppressors Michigan can compliant in 2009 ?

[coolwaterz]

I was told by a member here when meeting face to face that MI
will be legal by November to apply and obtain cans for your
toys...

any residents know how much trouble it will be,and the legitimacy of this?

I have googled and found a few mentioned articles but somewhat vague.

 

[ScottACousino]

Re: Michigan can compliant in 2009 ?

I know they pushed thru the MG's a few years back, but cans/SBR's/SBS's got held up as they were covered in a different paragraph of Michigans Code.

I have not heard anything of any new legislation, but that would be great for you guys.

Scott

 

[Adam B]

Re: Michigan can compliant in 2009 ?

who do we need to go after to get this put though? I would love a SBR and a few cans!

 

[Highground]

Re: Michigan can compliant in 2009 ?

Don't hold your breath guys.

 

[ScottACousino]

Re: Michigan can compliant in 2009 ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: adam boynton</div><div class="ubbcode-body">who do we need to go after to get this put though? I would love a SBR and a few cans! </div></div>

The Attorney General was the one who wrote the oppinion to include new MG's along with the already allowed C&R MG's, so he would be the one to approach.

Scott

 

[Graham]

Re: Michigan can compliant in 2009 ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scott A Cousino</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Attorney General was the one who wrote the oppinion to include new MG's along with the already allowed C&R MG's, so he would be the one to approach.</div></div>Nope: Michigan has a silencer statute.

It's a State law (not a State interpretation of Federal law).

I know what you're thinking: suppressors aren't silencers, so try to get an AG opinion that agrees with that. But, looking at the statute, the safest thing to do is to change the law:

MCL 750.224 provides that a person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess a muffler or silencer. "Silencer" is defined as a device for muffling, silencing, or deadening the report of a firearm.

On its face, that definition includes suppressors.

 

[ScottACousino]

Re: Michigan can compliant in 2009 ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Scott A Cousino</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Attorney General was the one who wrote the oppinion to include new MG's along with the already allowed C&R MG's, so he would be the one to approach.</div></div>Nope: Michigan has a silencer statute.

It's a State law (not a State interpretation of Federal law).

I know what you're thinking: suppressors aren't silencers, so try to get an AG opinion that agrees with that. But, looking at the statute, the safest thing to do is to change the law:

MCL 750.224 provides that a person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess a muffler or silencer. "Silencer" is defined as a device for muffling, silencing, or deadening the report of a firearm.

On its face, that definition includes suppressors. </div></div>

That sucks.

Scott

 

[Highground]

Re: Michigan can compliant in 2009 ?

In theory, I think it would be easier to argue a case for SBR's than for suppressors. If you can purchase a "pistol" rifle and register it as a handgun, then it would "seem" that you could argue for adding a stock to it and still register it as a handgun if need be.

 

[spiritzerothree]

Re: Michigan can compliant in 2009 ?

The AG Opinion was written for MCL 750.224, SBR's are under an entirely different michigan law. Based on the way that MCL 750.224 is written....

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">750.224 Weapons; manufacture, sale, or possession as felony; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "muffler" or "silencer" defined.

Sec. 224.

(1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess any of the following:

(a) A machine gun or firearm that shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than 1 shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

(b) A muffler or silencer.

(c) A bomb or bombshell.

(d) A blackjack, slungshot, billy, metallic knuckles, sand club, sand bag, or bludgeon.

(e) A device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance designed to render a person temporarily or permanently disabled by the ejection, release, or emission of a gas or other substance.

(2) A person who violates subsection (1) 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.

<span style="font-weight: bold">(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:</span>

(a) A self-defense spray or foam device as defined in section 224d.

(b) A person manufacturing firearms, explosives, or munitions of war by virtue of a contract with a department of the government of the United States.

<span style="font-weight: bold">(c) A person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or the secretary's delegate to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun, or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, <span style="text-decoration: underline">or contrivance described in subsection (1).</span></span>

(4) As used in this chapter, "muffler" or "silencer" means 1 or more of the following:

(a) A device for muffling, silencing, or deadening the report of a firearm.

(b) A combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer.

(c) A part, designed or redesigned, and intended only for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer.


</div></div>

It would IN THEORY be much easier to get suppressors in michigan than SBRs. A number of folks in the state senate have already written to AG Cox and requested clarification on the language regarding supressors, just a matter of waiting now.

 

[Graham]

Re: Michigan can compliant in 2009 ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know what you're thinking: suppressors aren't silencers, so try to get an AG opinion that agrees with that.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SpiritZeroThree</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The AG Opinion was written for MCL 750.224 </div></div>Yup: Well said. The Section 3(c) exception argument is the same argument again, but this time without any pre-existing curio/relic opinion.

Perhaps I should have said: try to get an AG opinion that the exception swallows the rule. I'm not trying to be negative: the plain language of the exception would appear to do just that.

But opinions change, and they're just opinions (although with the force of law until changed). Still, the safest thing is to amend the statute.

 

[Averagejoe]

Re: Michigan can compliant in 2009 ?

Cant a Class 2 07 Manufacturers FFL posses cans without an issue? If yes and you really want them bad, pay the $500.00 per year SOT and get them that way...