This is written to the Senators sponsoring SB 371. The Senate sponsors are Senators CROPSEY, RICHARDVILLE, SANBORN, PATTERSON, KUIPERS, KAHN, JELINEK, JANSEN and GILBERT and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Email links for sending your email. Please feel free to copy and paste my letter as your own letter if you would like and email to the following senate sponsors of SB 371.

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

I just fired off my first email letter to my State Senator Alan Sanborn;

The Honorable Senator,

 I commend your actions in fighting to further expand firearms freedoms for Michigan law abiding citizens. I have taken note of the legislation that is being proposed (SB 371) and I fully support removing the safety inspection i.e. handgun registration reform. I and many of my National Firearms Act (NFA) associates can truly appreciate the elimination of such intrusive data such as the states defacto handgun registration scheme especially since we are so heavily burdened with the federal registration procedures associated with our machine gun shooting sport.

 The reason I am writing to you and your colleagues today is to ask you to further advance our state NFA freedoms by adding a few words to your Senate Bill 371? The effect would be to recognize the federal approval of short barreled rifles and shotguns (SBR, SBS) that are legal for law abiding Americans to own as long as there is no state law that prohibits such. Currently the state statute as written prohibits SBR and SBS with the exception of those classified as a curio and relic (C&R). This is what we would like to change. We propose Michigan law abiding citizens be given the right to legally own an SBR SBS without regard to its C&R status.  

 Since you are marking up SB 371, MCL 750.224 b (the short barreled rifle shotgun statute) we would respectfully ask you consider adding the following words to 224 b section 3 inserted in bold.

 (3) This section does not apply to the making, sale, offering for sale, transfer or possession of a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun which the secretary of the treasury or the Attorney General of the United States of America, or his or her delegate has approved, or which,

 Finally please do not forget to address old Frank Kelly opinion OAG 6280 as it is what causes the complex barrel length absurdities to come into play. Under Kelly 6280 guys have to bring their folding stock carbines, and rifles or similar guns in to the PD to be registered as pistols. If we address the short barreled rifle / shotgun statute then there is no need for complicated length issues. If its short barreled and the owner possesses the approved federal form then it should be held as legal in the state.

 I look forward to your support and await your response. Please feel free to contact me or ask for my testimony before your committee.

Respectfully submitted,  



The National Firearms Act branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (NFA-BATFE) under the auspices of the Attorney General of the United States is authorized to manage the registration and transfer of legally transferable firearms and devices such as machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns, destructive devices and any other weapon (AOW). These are what we loosely refer to as “NFA”. No regulated item can be transferred to a person unless that item exists for lawful transfer in the National Firearms Registry and Transfer Record (NFRTR). As you may also know any person who chooses to exercise their federal right to possess such items must file the proper federal registration transfer form in duplicate with passport photos’, FBI blue line fingerprint cards, the signatures of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the applicant’s jurisdiction, a certificate of affidavit of United States citizenship, the proper transfer tax payment generally $200 and months of processing time so plenty of safeguards are in place.  

What senators should we write to on this one?

SB 371 The Senate sponsors are Senators CROPSEY, RICHARDVILLE, SANBORN, PATTERSON, KUIPERS, KAHN, JELINEK, JANSEN and GILBERT and referred to the Committee on Judiciary

I've written all of the Senators who sponsored the bill and have actually gotten a couple of emails back.  Hopefully, they consider our suggestions and make the changes.  I, for one, will complete my Form 1 and send it in the day I hear if this passes.  I've got an Anvil Arms stripped lower that is just begging to be built as an 11.5" SBR.

You might want to also ask your legislator to explain how it is that we can own federally registered short barreled machine guns but not federally registered short barreled rifles?  Tell them you do not understand and perhaps they can explain the legal rationale.  Its just a thought.

I doubt they would be able to explain it to our satisfaction as they did not pass the law.  Also, outside those who shoot, many people don't know about SBR's and SBS's or the steps necessary to own them.

Done.

Quoted: SB 371 The Senate sponsors are Senators CROPSEY, RICHARDVILLE, SANBORN, PATTERSON, KUIPERS, KAHN, JELINEK, JANSEN and GILBERT and referred to the Committee on Judiciary

Sent to all. Thanks for the template.

Here is another option on the language that goes to the heart of it.  I sent this to each of the senators noted above.  Feel free to use any or all in your communications.  It covers CLEO refusals and eliminates Kelly's confusing AG opinion.


Dear Senators:
I understand you are considering changes to the pistol safety inspection requirement that forces short-staffed local police departments to process needless paperwork without state funding (SB 371).  While you are at it, can you also introduce legislative changes that would allow the private possession of federally registered, tax paid and CLEO approved short barreled rifles (SBR) and shotguns (SBS) which are not solely classified as curio & relic weapons (C&R)?  We are not talking about legalizing the practice of sawing off your dad's rifle or shotgun.  We are referring to federally registered SBR/SBS weapons.

Such a change would allow Michigan citizens to own, in addition to the C&R SBR/SBS weapons they may now possess, non-C&R SBR/SBS weapons.

I should also point out that Michigan's private citizens can own federally registered short barreled machine guns which are not C&R classified.  Why not also allow federally registered short barreled rifles which are not C&R classified?  It only makes sense.

Plus if you look at the statute, you find no exception even for law enforcement.  Yet AFT has stated that there are 445 SBR's and 965 SBS's already registered in Michigan as of 2007.  It is impossible to believe those are all C&R as there are very few of those weapons to being with.  I suspect that ATF has been approving SBR and SBS weapons to law enforcement without regard to what the law says.  The language below also resolves No. 6280, the Attorney General opinion which no one can clearly explain from memory.

Amending that statue would be simple.  BOLD is add, Underlined is delete.

MCL 750.224b Short-barreled shotgun or rifle; manufacture, sale, or possession as felony; penalty; exceptions; applicability of § 776.20.
Sec. 224b.
(1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled rifle.
(2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.
(3) The provisions of this sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to the making or manufacture, sale, offering for sale, transfer or possession of a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun by a person either approved or licensed, by the secretary of the treasury or the Attorney General of the United States of America, or his delegate.
(4) Where a CLEO certification is required to the effect that he or she has no information indicating that the maker or transferee will use a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled rifle for other than a lawful purposes, the CLEO shall not refuse to give his or her certification.
(5)  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 not a short-barreled rifle.
(6) 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 not a short-barreled shotgun.


[the balance is deleted, i.e.,]
has approved pursuant to U.S.C. title 26, section 5801 through 5872, or U.S.C. title 18, 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 the provisions of sections 2 and 9 of Act No. 372 of the Public Acts of 1927, as amended, being sections 28.422 and 28.429 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
The provisions of section 20 of chapter 16 of Act No. 175 of the Public Acts of 1927, as added by Act No. 299 of the Public Acts of 1968, being section 776.20 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, are applicable to this subsection.

Senate Sponsors Of SB 370 & 371. Pistol Registration Reform. SB 371 Contains The Short-Barreled Rifle And Shotgun Statute MCL 750.224 b For Which The Senate Intends To Amend To Meet Their Registration Reform.

We Advocate That Since They Are Amending The SBR/SBS Statute – Then Amend It To Allow Citizens To Possess Federally Registered SBR/SBS Without Regard To Curio And Relic Status And As Allowable Under The National Firearms Act of 1934 As Amended.

Write or ask the bill sponsors to incorporate such changes to SB 371 so as to allow Michigan persons to legally exercise their federal firearms right to possess short barreled rifles and shotguns.

Also ask them to address Frank Kelly AG Opinion OAG 6280 that forces people to register folding stock carbines and rifles or other firearms as pistols by clarifying that they are not short barrel rifles or shotguns as a part of the amended statute MCL 750.224b.
 


[email protected]
The Honorable Alan L. Cropsey
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
Phone: (517)373-3760
by Fax: (517) 373-8661

[email protected]
Senator Randy Richardville
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
Phone:(517) 373-3543
By Fax:(517) 373-0927

[email protected]
Senator Alan Sanborn
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
Phone:(517) 373-7670
Toll Free:888-353-ALAN (2526)
By Fax:(517) 373-5958

[email protected]
Senator Bruce Patterson
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
By Phone:(517) 373-7350
Toll Free: 866-262-7307
By Fax:(517) 373-9228

[email protected]
Senator Wayne Kuipers
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
By Phone:(517) 373-6920
Toll Free:1-877-KUIPERS
By Fax:(517) 373-2751

[email protected]
Senator Roger Kahn
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
By Phone:(517) 373-1760
Toll Free:1-866-305-2132
By Fax:(517) 373-3487

[email protected]
Senator Ron Jelinek
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
By Phone:(517) 373-6960
Toll Free:1-866-305-2121
By Fax:(517) 373-0897

[email protected]
Senator Mark Jansen
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
By Phone:(517) 373-0797
By Fax:(517) 373-5236

[email protected]
Senator Jud Gilbert
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
By Phone:(517) 373-7708
Toll Free:1-877-GILBERT
Or 1-877-445-2378
By Fax:(517) 373-1450

Sent letters to them all about a week ago and got a response from Sanborn today...

Thank you for contacting my office in regard to Senate Bills 370 and
371.

I am extremely supportive of the commonsense reforms that are included
in these bills.  By doing away with the inconvenience of the safety
inspection certificate, gun owners won’t be burdened with this
unnecessary paperwork and local police departments will be able to focus
on promoting public safety, rather than worrying about bureaucratic
forms.  While it is difficult to say how quickly our work on these bills
will proceed to the point where a final vote held, I assure you that I
will be a strong advocate for this legislation during each step of the
legislative process.

Once again, thank you for contacting my office and urging my support
for Senate Bills 370 and 371.  If I can be of any further service,
please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely,
Alan Sanborn
State Senator
11th District


Just got a Email from my Senator

Thank you for contacting my office with your concerns over Senate Bills 370 and 371. I appreciate the time you took to write me about this important issue.

As you know, Senator Randy Richardville introduced SBs 370 and 371 on March 22, 2007 and the bills were referred to the Judiciary Committee where they are awaiting action. The bills would repeal the required safety inspection for newly obtained handguns by local police agencies, and it would require law enforcement agencies to destroy all safety inspection records on file within a year of approval of the bill. I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I have a CCW permit. Because I am not on the Judiciary Committee, my first opportunity to vote on these bills will not be until it reaches the full Senate. You can rest assured, however, that I will take your views into account when I cast my vote.

Again, thank you for contacting my office about this important issue. Please feel free to call on me with any further questions or concerns you may have regarding this issue or any other issue.  

Sincerely,

RAYMOND E. BASHAM
State Senator
8th District

Cool! I just called Senator Sanborns office and requested a meeting to discuss the issue from the SBR SBS NFA viewpoint.

Amy is supposed to look at his schedule and get back with me next week. I'll update as we progress.

Thanks for your activism.

emailed my senator (Gilbert) with a copy of your changes attached asking they amend the bill.

Lets see what happens

I just heard back from my senator, Roger Kahn.

Matthew

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Senate Bills 370 & 371.  I
appreciate you taking the time to contact me with your thoughts on this issue.

I agree that this inspection procedure is nothing more than a masked tracking
method for law abiding citizens.  The actual safety of a firearm cannot be
judged by this procedure.

Thanks again for your comments.  Please do not hesitate to contact my office in
the future on this or any other state-related issue.

Sincerely,

Roger Kahn, M.D.
State Senator
32nd District

Guys - a reply to my letter from my State Senator Alan Sanbor.

Dear Mr. BustOff LOL - I put the BustOff in there!:

Thank you for contacting my office and sharing your thoughts about Senate Bill 371.

I offered my name as a cosponsor of this legislation because I believe it addresses an important issue facing firearm owners in our state in a commonsense way.  While I am obviously supportive of the legislation in its current form, I also remain open to expanding the scope of this bill to address the issues you raised in regard to short barrel rifle and short barrel shotgun ownership.  Legislative protocol dictates that the primary sponsor of the legislation, in this case Senator Alan Cropsey, be given the opportunity to consider potential changes to the legislation before amendments are offered by other members (these amendments cannot be officially offered until the bill receives a committee hearing).  As a result, I would suggest that if you have not already done so, you contact Senator Cropsey’s office at [email protected] to let him know about the changes you are seeking.  Finally, I would just like to assure you that I will be keeping your comments on file as we continue our work on this legislation.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact my office.  If I can be of any further service, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely,
Alan Sanborn
State Senator
11th District

ABS/kdk

BustOff, I received the exact same response.

Very cool. This demonstrates we may in fact have traction on the issue. The fact that Senator Sanborn is not opposed gives us a leg up.

We should refocus on Senator Alan Cropsey and all of you should already know that Uncle Al Cropsey is the go to guy when it comes to pro gun issues. We just need to reinforce the message to Cropsey that we would like the SBR SBS issue settled with his legislation.

I would recommend everybody send out a new email to the Honorable Senator Alan Cropsey asking that he look into amending SB 371 to make SBR SBS legal without regard to curio and relic status - which as we all know is the only exception in the law. C&R SBR SBS are extremely rare so the law serves as a prohibition. Even phone calls to his office talking to an aid is a good idea at this point.

How would you like to be able to legally drop an 11 1/2" barreled upper on your CAR AR 15? Or how about in my case dropping my Olymic Arms OA93 7 1/2" upper on a AR 15 CAR. Would be bad ass!

Or how about an SAR 48 / FAL SBR with a 10.5 " OSW upper - or  or  or or a AK Krinkov setup - A UZI shorty with butt stock oh - oh - oh!

Yeah it's another $200 smackers to uncle SAM - but if we get this thing thru the state we could then have some more cool stuff and an SBR or SBS is certainly more affordable than MGs - though not quite as fun - but the coolness factor is there!

Lets do it! All the contact info is in this thread.

The Honorable Senator Alan Cropsey

[email protected]

Quoted: BustOff, I received the exact same response.

+1 Me too from Sanborn. I only got automated thanks for the email type responses from the others.

Great effort, I will do the same.

This caught my attention from the last NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert:

"KANSAS:  Governor Signs Two Pro-Gun Bills into Law!  On, Monday, April 21, Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) signed two important pro-gun bills into law. The first, House Bill 2280, will protect law-abiding gun owners' right to keep and bear arms, and would prevent the confiscation of firearms during a state of emergency, such as occurred following Hurricane Katrina and after the tornado devastation in Greensburg.  Also signed was Senate Bill 46, legislation that will allow Kansas firearm retailers, manufacturers, importers and citizens qualified under the National Firearms Act to sell, manufacture, import and own NFA firearms, consistent with federal law.  Please contact the Governor TODAY and thank her for signing HB2280 and SB46.  Governor Sebelius can be reached by phone at 1-877-579-6757 or locally at 785-296-3232.  You can also email her by clicking here."

If Kansas can do it with a Dem governor then hopefully we can get it done too!

Email sent to Senator Cropsey as well.

Lets keep this going  

I wish to get in on this e-mail campain, but you guys are forgetting legal suppressor ownership too.
I want to be able to own and use a suppressor on my .22 rifle more than the ability  to own a NFA SBR, or a SBS.

I feel If we get nothing from this, other than language striking AG Kelly's opinion on the under 30'' OAL, over 26"" is a pistol, than Michigan residents are victorious. That opinion is the most absurd  ruling I have ever read. That opinion has Michigan out of line with Federal rules on pistol vs rifles, and shotguns length. I have a Remington 870 with a Remington installed folding stock, bought new from a dealer, and had to register it as a pistol. When I took it in for registration, the Sheriff deputy at the window told me I didn't need to register it as a pistol. I had to get my MSP firearms laws booklet out AND show him the language that I did. This was in 1985.

Got another response today:

Hi hanibal. Good to hear from you. I appreciate the time that you have taken to share your concerns with me. While I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind with regard to Senate Bill (SB) 371, I am also taking the liberty of forwarding your suggestions to primary bill sponsor Senator Alan Cropsey for review and consideration. Thanks again! I appreciate your active involvement in the political process. Sincerely, Wayne Kuipers State Senator 30th District

Yeah - Hanibal me too - yesterday very similar message!

BustOff, as of now only 2 have responded personally. The rest have been auto responses.

Well it's raining out so.....

I sat down and put together a letter using parts of BustOff's and MichMan1's letters.
I send it off to all nine senators on the list that BustOff posted.

Thanks guys for the letters to work from. Saved me a bunch of time trying to but my thought down so the Senators got the right message.

Snakeman

Just read this thread and emailed them all. thank you Bustoff and MichMan1 for making it easier for us all.

Thanks, CM

hanibal, nice sig line, good question at least some of citizens are prepared.

You guys are welcome. I'm sure Kerry feels the same way I do. Whatever we can do! I also have an important announcement to make here very shortly. Nothing about cans or sbrs.

Just sent another email off to Sen. Cropsey regarding this.

For those who haven't contacted the sponsors of this bill, I would highly recommend doing so.  If you have, then send additional correspondence to Sen. Cropsey.

Personally, I am very excited about the possibility of not having to move out of state to own an SBR.

A bit late but email all of them using the template here.

I think it's important for every Michigan gun owner to do something to protect their rights.

Thank you for making it easier.

I want to fire off some emails.  I combined material from the templates provided and added my own twist.  What do you think? I prescribe a very straight-forward solution to the AG Decision 6280 issue.  I am hesitant to completely gut AG Decision 6280 for fear or losing the ability to carry certain loaded “long guns” in your vehicle under your CPL.





The Honorable Senator,

I commend your actions in fighting to further expand firearms freedoms for Michigan law abiding citizens. I and others have taken note of the legislation that is being proposed (SB 370 & 371) and I fully support handgun registration reform. Handgun safety inspections are a farce and the legal language demanding them should be removed.  We can truly appreciate the elimination of intrusive data such as the state’s de facto handgun registration scheme.

The reason I am writing to you and your colleagues today is to ask you to further advance our state NFA freedoms by adding and/or supporting the addition of a few words to Senate Bill 371. The effect would be to recognize the federal approval of short barreled rifles and shotguns (SBR, SBS) that are legal for law abiding Americans to own as long as there is no state law that prohibits such. Currently the state statute as written prohibits SBR and SBS with the exception of those classified as a curio and relic (C&R). This is what we would like to change. Michigan law abiding citizens should be allowed to own an SBR or SBS without regard to its C&R status.

Since you are marking up SB 371, MCL 750.224 b (the SBS and SBR statute) we would respectfully ask you consider making the following changes to that section.  BOLD is add.

(3) This section shall not apply to the making or manufacture, sale, offering for sale, transfer or possession of a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun by a person either approved or licensed, by the secretary of the treasury or the Attorney General of the United States of America, or his delegate.
(4) Where a CLEO certification is required to the effect that he or she has no information indicating that the maker or transferee will use a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled rifle for other than a lawful purposes, the CLEO shall not refuse to give his or her certification.
(5) A rifle with a barrel of at least 16 inches in length not a short-barreled rifle.
(6) A shotgun with a barrel of at least 18 inches in length is not a short-barreled shotgun.

I look forward to your support and await your response. Please feel free to contact me.

Respectfully submitted,



The National Firearms Act branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (NFA-BATFE) under the auspices of the Attorney General of the United States is authorized to manage the registration and transfer of legally transferable firearms and devices such as machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns, destructive devices and any other weapon (AOW). These are what we loosely refer to as “NFA” weapons. No regulated item can be transferred to a person unless that item exists for lawful transfer in the National Firearms Registry and Transfer Record (NFRTR). As you may also know any person seeking legal ownership of such items must file the proper federal registration transfer form in duplicate with passport photos; FBI blue line fingerprint cards; the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the applicant’s jurisdiction; a certificate of affidavit of United States citizenship; and the proper transfer tax payment (generally $200).  This is a rigorous process that typically entails months of processing time.

Guys - it's looking like Cropsey's Senate Judiciary Committee has reported out of committee SB 370 and 371 without any of our recommended changes to recognize our federal right to own and possess Short Barreled Rifles and Shotguns.

The only thing it appears they did do was change the punishment section for failing to register a pistol from a misdemeanor to a state civil infraction and preclude automatic loss of CPL.

So we are being stonewalled or ignored and our so-called pro gun friends ain't really our friends - at least when it comes to us owning the most highly controlled firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act which should be a no brainer. Really - how much trouble are legal NFA guys getting into - about ZERO.

To be fair Cropsey's committee conducted the vote out of committee without Senators Sanborn or Patterson being present. It looks like the bills will go to conference to iron out the differences between the house and senate versions.

I say you guys need to raise a little hell about Cropsey and MCRGO ignoring this simple opportunity to legalize SBR and SBS. The contact info is at the link and at the top of this thread.

www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/d_contact.asp

www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/view/news.asp?articleid=3294&zoneid=6  

Bustoff,
I spoke with one of the ATF NFA guys last week on the C&R SBR/SBS issue. More to come on that soon. Dont know either way yet.

But, he made mention that the Kansas law changes which recently passed should be the model for all States. He said it was written simply and basically said if ATF says ok then its ok. I havent read it myself but it may be another option to push at them.

I wouldn't get your knickers all up in a twist over this.  To us, from our view points it seems like it would be a simple thing to get this changed, in actuality I can well imagine it's like trying to change the path of a boulder.  We just didn't catch it early enough.  These guys have introduced SEVERAL bills promoting our cause so I would humbly suggest there's no reason to start getting pissy with them.   Just thank them for their efforts and ask if there's some potential to consider the other issues at some point down the road.  It's easier to get these done incrementally without raising flags to the anti's instead of one BIIIIIGGG bill drawing their attention addressing 50 things.  Grandma always said it's easier to catch flies with honey than it is vinegar and I'd imagine she was right.

I always get a little pissy - it must be in my genes! Fact of the matter is nobody but nobody other than a couple of my friends and AG Mike Cox who I think I can call my friend has done a damn thing for NFA guys ever.

This goes back over the years and I have talked with Cropsey in the past about harmonizing Michigan law with fed law - I don't think he wants to do anything about it. Here he has a golden opportunity and other legislators have certainly spoke to him about it and they don't address it.

I guess I'm sick and tired of excuses. We all should be. We can't get action on silencers and we can't get action on SBR and SBS and we run into trouble with the MSP trying to declare AOW's illegal SBR's and SBSes and thats because we have WEENIES in the legislature who think being pro gun means screwin around with the pistol laws all the time.

Bullshit. Reform the fed law and let Michigan citizens exercise their federal gun rights instead of overlooking the states transgressions because you can't put a silencer on a shotgun, or, who needs a machine gun, or short barreled rifles and shotguns are dangerous weapons mentality of the WEENIES.

Bullshit!

Cropsey and company can turn this around and make SBR and SBS legal with this law with the addition of a couple words in this committee.

So complain NOW.

It reads like they went forward and need the Gov. to sign them now.  I must be missing something.  What further action are you recommending?  Who should we bitch to?

We should bitch to all of the above at the top of the thread for not amending the statute as we recommended to make SBR and SBS legal if approved by the fed.

The only thing they did was to eliminate the safety inspection on pistols when they have the opportunity to amend the same law to make SBR and SBS legal if approved by the federal government.

Bitch to these guys - you wrote them earlier about this whole deal - The Senate sponsors are Senators CROPSEY, RICHARDVILLE, SANBORN, PATTERSON, KUIPERS, KAHN, JELINEK, JANSEN and GILBERT and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

You might ask them to reconsider and seize the opportunity to correct the SBR SBS prohibition and offer an amendment to correct it or argue in conference committee to make the correction that would allow Michigan citizens the right to exercise their federal right to own an SBR or SBS if approved by the federal government.

Feel free to use this letter or edit it to your own liking and contact the bill sponsors and or your State Senators and State Reps.


The Honorable Senator

 While I am happy with your efforts to eliminate the safety inspection regarding pistol purchases at the same time I AM GREATLY DISMAYED that you did not alter the language of SB 371 to make possession of short barreled rifles and shotguns legal to possess if approved by the federal government when you had the opportunity to do so.

 As you may recall I contacted you earlier this year regarding the issue of amending SB 371, the pertinent section of that communication copied and pasted herein;

 "Since you are marking up SB 371, MCL 750.224 b (the short barreled rifle shotgun statute) we would respectfully ask you consider adding the following words to 224 b section 3, the added language CAPITALIZED."

 "(3) This section does not apply to the MAKING, sale, offering for sale, TRANSFER or possession of a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun which the secretary of the treasury OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States of America, or his or her delegate HAS APPROVED, OR WHICH,"

 Michigan gun owners remain second class gun owners in comparison to our counterparts in most other states and this is because we cannot exercise our federal gun rights under the National Firearms Act due to prohibitions of Michigan law. Our border state of Ohio allows its gun owners to exercise those rights.

 What is your excuse in not seizing the opportunity to fix SB 371 to allow us to legally own short barreled rifles and shotguns?

 You still have the opportunity to do the right thing and fight for changes in conference or offer amendments from the floor. Please seize the moment.

Respectfully

While it's nice to see a generally positive response from the majority of the legislators, the cynic in me does wonder what their response would be to a neutrally worded or perhaps even anti-supportive toned letter.

I'm about to find out! Unfortunately my phone line is down or my letter would have been faxed in addition to the already emailed bitch letter.

anyone heard when this would go into effect?  I got a few things I'd actually like to have green cards for.

So, did they vote to get rid of the inspections?  BTW I will be writing and calling them about the SBR and SBS part too

Quoted: Grandma always said it's easier to catch flies with honey than it is vinegar and I'd imagine she was right.

Of course grandma is right.
Flies are not as dumb as the lawmakers.

Just faxed this in to all the bill sponsors.

June 19, 2008

Failure to make appropriate changes to SB 371 Pistol Safety Inspection

The Honorable Senator,

 While I am happy with your efforts to eliminate the safety inspection regarding pistol purchases, at the same time I AM GREATLY DISMAYED that you did not alter the language of SB 371 to make possession of short barreled rifles and shotguns legal to possess if approved by the federal government when you had the opportunity to do so.

 As you may recall I contacted you earlier this year regarding the issue of amending SB 371, the pertinent section of that communication copied and pasted herein;

 "Since you are marking up SB 371, MCL 750.224 b (the short-barreled rifle shotgun statute) we would respectfully ask you consider adding the following words to 224 b section 3, the added language CAPITALIZED."

 "(3) This section does not apply to the MAKING, sale, offering for sale, TRANSFER or possession of a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled shotgun which the secretary of the treasury OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL of the United States of America, or his or her delegate HAS APPROVED, OR WHICH,"

 Michigan gun owners remain second class gun owners in comparison to our counterparts in most other states and this is because we cannot exercise our federal gun rights under the National Firearms Act (NFA) due to the unfair prohibitions of Michigan law. Our border state of Ohio allows its gun owners to exercise all of their federal rights to own machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, etc. Just this year Kansas passed a law allowing their citizens to possess federally regulated firearms and devices consistent with the NFA as long as the fed approves. Again this year the state of Missouri passed a law that allows their citizens who are federally licensed including Curio and Relic Collector licensees to possess federally regulated firearms and devices including silencers. I’ve got to ask you – why can’t we pass such reforms?  

 What is your excuse in not seizing the opportunity to fix SB 371 to allow us to legally own short-barreled rifles and shotguns? And the larger question – when will you proceed to allow Michigan gun owners to exercise their federal gun rights?

 You still have the opportunity to do the right thing and fight for changes in conference or offer amendments from the floor. Please seize the moment.

Please remember this quote… “A right delayed is a right denied” Martin Luther King Jr.

Respectfully,

Michael P. Sessa

I just received the following reply from Senator Sanborn:

Dear Mr. BC98:

Thank you for following-up with my office in regard to Senate Bill 371.

The Senate has completed its work on this specific bill and as you noted, the final version does not address the short barreled rifle/shotgun you had previously contacted me about.  While I can understand your frustration about this fact, I think it is important to keep in mind that ultimately the legislative process is one of compromise and small steps toward larger goals.  In this case, an amendment to this legislation dealing with short barreled rifles could have seriously jeopardized its passage, costing firearm owners the safety certificate reform we are seeking to implement.  

That being said, the reality is that we have not yet reached the point of final passage for this legislation, since each chamber has passed their own bills on the subject, but have not yet considered the bills originating in the other chamber.  This is a common legislative practice that shows each chambers willingness and ability to work on the issue. More serious negotiations between the chief sponsors (in the Senate this is Senator Cropsey) will now take place in regard to the final content of the legislative package.  I know that Senator Cropsey is aware of your proposed amendment, but I will be sure to remind him when given thechance.   Once again, thank you for following-up with my office in regard to this issue.  If I can be of any further service, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely,
Alan Sanborn
State Senator
11th District

While it is nice to receive a (what seems to be) personally written email from the Senator, it really pisses me off that the legislators think that allowing SBR/SBS ownership and bringing Michigan firearms in line with the majory of the rest of the United States could hurt their chances of passing the legislation.  I'm not sure that Senator Sanborn or any of the other co-sponsors realize that the process required to purchase a SBR/SBS is very similar to that required to purchase a Class III weapon.

Seriously, if my wife and I knew we could sell our home I would be moving to a more NFA-friendly state in a heartbeat.

Yup - BC I got the same form letter as you did and I replied again and so should you and bring up those points you just mentioned. We need to create communication because we have not been listened to.

Yesterday I got a call from Senator Richardville's office based on my terse letter I faxed in. The Senator's aid was trying to tell me my letter was disrespectful because I asked "whats your excuse..."

Whatever.

I did glean information that the Governor would not sign the bill if the Michigan State Police oppose the bill. And apparently the MSP will not support the SBR SBS language change.

So this is the stumbling block and the usual suspects are involved - the elite MSP. So here we have LE Departments in the state driving around with illegal short-barreled rifles and the MSP wants to preserve the law and overlook LE departments breaking it!

WTF - and we the law abiding people just want to do the right thing and make it legal for everybody including LE.

This is common sense - something the uppers at MSP are obviously lacking.

FRUSTRATED - YES! We can't get the AG to give us an opinion on silencers, we can't get SBR and SBS legalized by changing a couple words, and we have to fight our state police from declaring the guns we do legally own as SBR or SBSes. Fix the law and we don't need to worry about bullshit barrel length or overall length - got the fed paper you're good to go.

Has anyone ever commited a crime with a short barreled rifle or shotgun?....I remember the one that was a cop somewhere, but not sure what kind of gun.

Quoted: While it is nice to receive a (what seems to be) personally written email from the Senator, it really pisses me off that the legislators think that allowing SBR/SBS ownership and bringing Michigan firearms in line with the majory of the rest of the United States could hurt their chances of passing the legislation.............

I think they are correct in their belief that reforming SBR/SBS language would hurt the bill’s chance of being passed.  Legalizing SBR’s & SBS’s in MI is not high priority for even most gun-owners.  Do you or do you not believe SBR’s & SBS’s are perceived negatively by many, complicating the matter of legalizing them in MI?  I think they are, just like full-auto weapons, unfortunately.

Quoted: I think they are correct in their belief that reforming SBR/SBS language would hurt the bill’s chance of being passed.  Legalizing SBR’s & SBS’s in MI is not high priority for even most gun-owners.  Do you or do you not believe SBR’s & SBS’s are perceived negatively by many, complicating the matter of legalizing them in MI?  I think they are, just like full-auto weapons, unfortunately.

Given a proper explanation of what is required to own an SBR/SBS, no I do not think it would hurt the bill's chances.  Perhaps it is my overly simplistic view of the world but my thoughts are this:

-Possesion of a non-registered SBR/SBS would still be illegal if the legislature were to change
-Those who WANT one, can be allowed to go through the application process
-The application process is very similar to that required for a full-auto weapon
-If I lived about 100 miles south of where I do, I could own one
-Why shouldn't Michigan's laws align with what's allowed by the federal government?

I truly want to own an 11.5" AR.  You show those "many" who view these weapons negatively, an 11.5" AR next to a 14.5" AR with pinned flash hider (i.e. legal in MI) and they will be viewed the same.  So, no I don't believe they are viewed any differently than other EBRs.  

To the average gun owner, this law changes nothing.  To those who wish to own an SBR or SBS it means everything.  To me, it means our lawmakers actually give a crap about those who they are representing.

Also, as I'm sure you know, full-auto is legal irregardless of whether Class III weapons are viewed negatively.

Quoted: Quoted: I think they are correct in their belief that reforming SBR/SBS language would hurt the bill’s chance of being passed.  Legalizing SBR’s & SBS’s in MI is not high priority for even most gun-owners.  Do you or do you not believe SBR’s & SBS’s are perceived negatively by many, complicating the matter of legalizing them in MI?  I think they are, just like full-auto weapons, unfortunately. Given a proper explanation of what is required to own an SBR/SBS, no I do not think it would hurt the bill's chances.  Perhaps it is my overly simplistic view of the world but my thoughts are this: -Possesion of a non-registered SBR/SBS would still be illegal if the legislature were to change -Those who WANT one, can be allowed to go through the application process -The application process is very similar to that required for a full-auto weapon -If I lived about 100 miles south of where I do, I could own one -Why shouldn't Michigan's laws align with what's allowed by the federal government? I truly want to own an 11.5" AR.  You show those "many" who view these weapons negatively, an 11.5" AR next to a 14.5" AR with pinned flash hider (i.e. legal in MI) and they will be viewed the same.  So, no I don't believe they are viewed any differently than other EBRs.   To the average gun owner, this law changes nothing.  To those who wish to own an SBR or SBS it means everything.  To me, it means our lawmakers actually give a crap about those who they are representing. Also, as I'm sure you know, full-auto is legal irregardless of whether Class III weapons are viewed negatively.

I think you have made my point.  Most people have not been given the “proper explanation”.  The fact that you say “Given a proper explanation” indicates to me you believe most are clueless and require an explanation before they would accept SBR’s/SBS’s are no big deal.  My contention is that lawmakers do not buy into to your reasoning; have not been introduced to your simple logic; and/or personally accept SB stuff as no big deal but worry about their actions being negatively perceived by voters because voters do not agree with or have not been introduced to your logic.