Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 8
Posted: 10/9/2013 2:47:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MichMan1]
SBR Bill Status

An SBR/SBS bill has been introduced and passed the Senate.  It was then amended in the House Judiciary Committee (H-1).  H-1 passed the House on March 13, 2014.  The House version was passed by the Senate on March 18, 2014.  The Governor signed on 3-26 and it was effected on 3-27-14.  

The new law legalizes SBR/SBS if federally approved.  It then divides the SBR/SBS world into: 1) federally approved 26 inch and under SBR/SBS's that must be registered as pistols under state law; and 2) over 26 inch federally approved SBR/SBSs that are not to be registered as pistols under state law, BUT will require a copy of the federal Form 1, 3, 4 paperwork to be produced upon request to a peace officer while transporting or using the firearm.  This second group of SBR/SBS are not eligible for concealed carry.

Also remember a Form 1 is used to Make an SBR/SBS and a Form 4 to transfer a previously made SBR/SBS.
If you have a pistol already licensed with the state and you want to make an SBR from it, use Form 1.
If you have a pistol already licensed with the state and you want to make an SBR from it for your trust, then the Form 1 to make is executed in the name of the trust.
Link Posted: 3/3/2014 4:45:11 PM EDT
[#1]
I've always been against the concept of registration whether it's for pistols or registering a vehicle I don't believe the government needs to keep and inventory list of what I own.

That said, we're trying to expand freedoms and if registering an SBR as a pistol results in smoother passage than so bet it...for now.
Link Posted: 3/3/2014 6:06:28 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SilentType:
I've always been against the concept of registration whether it's for pistols or registering a vehicle I don't believe the government needs to keep and inventory list of what I own.

That said, we're trying to expand freedoms and if registering an SBR as a pistol results in smoother passage than so bet it...for now.
View Quote

House Ammendment H-1 actually made a distinction so that not all SBRs would need to be in the MI pistol registry. The Ammendment clarified that only SBRs with an OAL less than 26" must be registered. This was done so that SB610 wouldn't be changing the definition of a pistol. However, I'm not sure how many SBRs are less than 26" OAL.

In any case, I hope to see a renewed push to eliminate the pistol registry in the near future. There's no need for it and it doesn't solve any issues. I only see it as a tack-on charge for criminals caught with a gun. I don't see it as serving a practical purpose.
Link Posted: 3/3/2014 9:04:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Fail to register isnt even much of a tack on charge anymore since its only a civil infraction.
Link Posted: 3/4/2014 9:48:26 AM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cybersniper:
Fail to register isnt even much of a tack on charge anymore since its only a civil infraction.
View Quote



Whoa!

I thought it was a misdemeanor???
Link Posted: 3/4/2014 11:14:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: rjbergen] [#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jchewie1:

Whoa!

I thought it was a misdemeanor???
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jchewie1:
Originally Posted By cybersniper:
Fail to register isnt even much of a tack on charge anymore since its only a civil infraction.

Whoa!

I thought it was a misdemeanor???

I thought so as well. Here is the relevant language from the MCL. Is there something I am missing here? All I see is that failure to submit the RI-60 is a $250 fine.

Is there a separate charge somewhere in the MCL for possession of an unregistered pistol?

MCL 28.422 (Pertains to non-CPL holders and license to purchase)
(5) If an individual purchases or otherwise acquires a pistol, the seller shall fill out the license forms describing the pistol, together with the date of sale or acquisition, and sign his or her name in ink indicating that the pistol was sold to or otherwise acquired by the purchaser. The purchaser shall also sign his or her name in ink indicating the purchase or other acquisition of the pistol from the seller. The seller may retain a copy of the license as a record of the transaction. The purchaser shall receive 2 copies of the license. The purchaser shall return 1 copy of the license to the licensing authority within 10 days after the date the pistol is purchased or acquired. The return of the copy to the licensing authority may be made in person or may be made by first-class mail or certified mail sent within the 10-day period to the proper address of the licensing authority. A purchaser who fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $250.00. If a purchaser is found responsible for a state civil infraction under this subsection, the court shall notify the department of state police of that determination.

MCL 28.422a (Pertains to CPL holders who aren't required to obtain a license to purchase)
(2) If an individual described in subsection (1) purchases or otherwise acquires a pistol, the seller shall complete a record in triplicate on a form provided by the department of state police. The record shall include the purchaser's concealed weapon license number or, if the purchaser is a federally licensed firearms dealer, his or her dealer license number. If the purchaser is not licensed under section 5b and is not a federally licensed firearms dealer, the record shall include the dealer license number of the federally licensed firearms dealer who is selling the pistol. The purchaser shall sign the record. The seller may retain 1 copy of the record. The purchaser shall receive 2 copies of the record and forward 1 copy to the police department of the city, village, or township in which the purchaser resides, or, if the purchaser does not reside in a city, village, or township having a police department, to the county sheriff, within 10 days following the purchase or acquisition. The return of the copy to the police department or county sheriff may be made in person or may be made by first-class mail or certified mail sent within the 10-day period to the proper address of the police department or county sheriff. A purchaser who fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $250.00. If a purchaser is found responsible for a state civil infraction under this subsection, the court shall notify the department of state police. If the purchaser is licensed under section 5b, the court shall notify the licensing authority of that determination.
Link Posted: 3/4/2014 12:15:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: cybersniper] [#6]
That's it. You can see at the bottom of the full statute it took effect (Imd. Eff.) Dec. 18, 2012. It was part of the same changes to the CPL and purchase permit process in 2012. The same time it changed allowing CPL holders to fill out their own forms and just mail them in.

It is still a felony to falsify a pistol record and a misdemeanor to use someones ID. Also, if you have a CPL and your caught in possession of an unregistered handgun, expect to get a letter from your issuing County Gun Board for a review hearing.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 6:26:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
Originally Posted By cybersniper:
Originally Posted By SilentType:
I'll be very happy when I can defend my home and family with an SBR 300 Blackout Suppressed AR.
View Quote


I have a hard time using a NFA weapon for day to day home defense. Just for the mere fact that if I have to shoot someone with it, my $2000 investment is now locked up in a police evidence room pending the investigation both criminal and civil. Even if cleared criminally the civil lawyers will have a field day with the fact that you shot someone with a suppressed firearm. My $500 Glock and $300 870 work just fine for home defense.

But, we can both hope you will soon have the chance to make the choice to use one or not. My 16" suppressed 9mm AR sure is front heavy. Could really use a shorter barrel.
View Quote


I never understood people's reluctance to use a better, more expensive weapon for personal defense based on the idea that they might have to surrender it for a while as evidence.

Look, if you take a human life or shoot someone the last thing you are going to be thinking about while watching them bleed out on your carpet is "Damn... I'm not going to see this gun again for a year!".... Use the gun that is most effective for the task at hand and use it to Shoot To Live rather than "Shoot To Kill".
View Quote


Well, two points here:

Price isn't always indicative of performance, nor suitability. Your Les Baer .45 that costs DOUBLE what Springfield, Colt or equivalent other quality, reliable gun isn't going  to be any "better" at home defence distances. So the logic that "because a gun is more expensive, it's better" (at HD) is flawed at best. Sure, there is some arguemernt there if you talk raven vs Sig. He has a glock, its going to be difficult to impossible to argue that there is a quantitative "better" pistol (for HD). I'm sure a Colt 6920 is effectively equal with a LaRue at home defence distances.

Only a FOOL would use their registered M16 for home defence. If you can afford a NFA item, and have the interest in them to begin with, then you probably have multiple other quality guns to use for home defense. I guess you wouldnt mind the PD engraving case numbers on your items, losing use of items that you cannot easily replace, possibly running afoul of NFA stuff (for the multi sbr upper/one lower owners) and all the associated hassle.

So I guess I don't understand those that would feel the need to use their status symbol firearms, rather then plain Jane (perfectly reliable and serviceable) firearms that would be quickly, easily and relatively cheaply replaced.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 9:05:56 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Toxie:


Well, two points here:

Price isn't always indicative of performance, nor suitability. Your Les Baer .45 that costs DOUBLE what Springfield, Colt or equivalent other quality, reliable gun isn't going  to be any "better" at home defence distances. So the logic that "because a gun is more expensive, it's better" (at HD) is flawed at best. Sure, there is some arguemernt there if you talk raven vs Sig. He has a glock, its going to be difficult to impossible to argue that there is a quantitative "better" pistol (for HD). I'm sure a Colt 6920 is effectively equal with a LaRue at home defence distances.

Only a FOOL would use their registered M16 for home defence. If you can afford a NFA item, and have the interest in them to begin with, then you probably have multiple other quality guns to use for home defense. I guess you wouldnt mind the PD engraving case numbers on your items, losing use of items that you cannot easily replace, possibly running afoul of NFA stuff (for the multi sbr upper/one lower owners) and all the associated hassle.

So I guess I don't understand those that would feel the need to use their status symbol firearms, rather then plain Jane (perfectly reliable and serviceable) firearms that would be quickly, easily and relatively cheaply replaced.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Toxie:
Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
Originally Posted By cybersniper:
Originally Posted By SilentType:
I'll be very happy when I can defend my home and family with an SBR 300 Blackout Suppressed AR.


I have a hard time using a NFA weapon for day to day home defense. Just for the mere fact that if I have to shoot someone with it, my $2000 investment is now locked up in a police evidence room pending the investigation both criminal and civil. Even if cleared criminally the civil lawyers will have a field day with the fact that you shot someone with a suppressed firearm. My $500 Glock and $300 870 work just fine for home defense.

But, we can both hope you will soon have the chance to make the choice to use one or not. My 16" suppressed 9mm AR sure is front heavy. Could really use a shorter barrel.


I never understood people's reluctance to use a better, more expensive weapon for personal defense based on the idea that they might have to surrender it for a while as evidence.

Look, if you take a human life or shoot someone the last thing you are going to be thinking about while watching them bleed out on your carpet is "Damn... I'm not going to see this gun again for a year!".... Use the gun that is most effective for the task at hand and use it to Shoot To Live rather than "Shoot To Kill".


Well, two points here:

Price isn't always indicative of performance, nor suitability. Your Les Baer .45 that costs DOUBLE what Springfield, Colt or equivalent other quality, reliable gun isn't going  to be any "better" at home defence distances. So the logic that "because a gun is more expensive, it's better" (at HD) is flawed at best. Sure, there is some arguemernt there if you talk raven vs Sig. He has a glock, its going to be difficult to impossible to argue that there is a quantitative "better" pistol (for HD). I'm sure a Colt 6920 is effectively equal with a LaRue at home defence distances.

Only a FOOL would use their registered M16 for home defence. If you can afford a NFA item, and have the interest in them to begin with, then you probably have multiple other quality guns to use for home defense. I guess you wouldnt mind the PD engraving case numbers on your items, losing use of items that you cannot easily replace, possibly running afoul of NFA stuff (for the multi sbr upper/one lower owners) and all the associated hassle.

So I guess I don't understand those that would feel the need to use their status symbol firearms, rather then plain Jane (perfectly reliable and serviceable) firearms that would be quickly, easily and relatively cheaply replaced.


I'd never use a Les Baer or other pretty boy gun for a home defense weapon-when it comes to handguns I like simple striker fired combat handguns, particularly Glocks and M&P's. I would have no problem using my subgun though, or an SBR because they are much better for clearing a house with than a full length carbine.
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 10:32:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Any more news on SB 610? Any action/updates?
Link Posted: 3/6/2014 11:41:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Still in House judiciary Committee;  Second reading was 2-27-14. Not yet to the full House but likely in next week.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 8:51:21 AM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MichMan1:
Still in House judiciary Committee;  Second reading was 2-27-14. Not yet to the full House but likely in next week.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MichMan1:
Still in House judiciary Committee;  Second reading was 2-27-14. Not yet to the full House but likely in next week.

Are you sure? I thought it was reported the bill with recommendation?

House Judiciary Committee meeting minutes from 27 Feb. 2014:
The Chair laid SB 610 before the committee:
SB 610 (Green) Weapons; firearms; manufacture, possession, or transfer of certain short-barreled shotguns or rifles; allow.

Ryan Mitchell, representing Senator Green’s office, described the changes made in the proposed substitute.

Representative Kesto moved to adopt substitute (H-1) to SB 610. The motion prevailed 9-0-2.

FAVORABLE ROLL CALL
Yeas: Reps. Cotter, Kesto, Heise, Johnson, LaFontaine, Leonard, Howrylak, Lipton, Clemente.
Nays: None.
Pass: Reps. Cavanagh, Irwin.

Sgt. Amy Dehner, representing the Michigan State Police, submitted a card with a neutral position on the bill, but did not wish to speak.

Representative Kesto moved to report SB 610 as substitute (H-1) with recommendation. The motion prevailed 8-0-3.

FAVORABLE ROLL CALL
Yeas: Reps. Cotter, Kesto, Heise, Johnson, LaFontaine, Leonard, Howrylak, Lipton.
Nays: None
Pass: Reps. Cavanagh, Irwin, Clemente


House Journal 23 from 27 Feb. 2014:
The Committee on Judiciary, by Rep. Cotter, Chair, reported Senate Bill No. 610, entitled:

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.

With the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.

The bill and substitute were referred to the order of Second Reading of Bills.

Favorable Roll Call
To Report Out:
Yeas: Reps. Cotter, Kesto, Heise, Johnson, LaFontaine, Leonard, Howrylak and Lipton
Nays: None


I thought this meant it was reported out of the House Judiciary Committee with the recommendation that H-1 be adopted and the bill then pass the House. It is referred to the Second Reading of Bills which is done in the full House I believe.

My understanding is that SB 610 has passed the House Judiciary Committee and is awaiting a second reading in front of the whole house with ammendment H-1. After the second reading, a representative must move that the bill be placed in the Thrid Reading of Bills. Once the bill is read a third time, a vote will be taken. If it passes the whole House vote, it will be sent back to the Senate for vote on ammendment H-1.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I see it right now.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 9:21:20 AM EDT
[#12]
That's our tax $ hard at work right there...
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 9:35:52 AM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MidMichHunter:
That's our tax $ hard at work right there...
View Quote

Huh?
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 9:42:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: rjbergen] [#14]
It is my current understanding (from the House Judiciary meeting minutes and the House Journal) that SB 610 is currently awaiting a second reading in front of the whole House. As such, it is time to start emailing our local Representatives to show our support and urge them to support SB 610 when it comes before the whole House for a vote. Below, you will find a form letter I have written (modified from the one I posted on page 6 of this thread) that you can use/modify to send to your local Representative. Let's keep the pressure on them to make sure this is passed quickly.

Rep. [INSERT REP'S NAME],

Currently, SB 610 has been reported out of the House Judiciary Committee favorably 8-0 and has been referred to the order of Second Reading of Bills. This bill was passed unanimously in the Senate Judiciary Committee only 8 days after it was introduced. Less than a month after being referred to the committee of the whole, it was passed by a 36-2 vote. I strongly urge you to support this bill when it comes before the House of Representatives.

SB 610 would align Michigan with 41 other states that currently follow federal firearms laws and allow for the legal possession of properly registered short barrel rifles (SBR) and short barrel shotguns (SBS). An individual wishing to take possession of such a firearm must submit an application form, passport-quality photograph, fingerprint cards, and $200 special tax to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives(BATFE). The BATFE conducts a thorough background investigation and processes the application, usually taking 6 months or more to reach a conclusion of approval or denial. If approved, the individual's firearm is then registered with the BATFE (note: this is not done with most firearms in the United States) and under SB 610, the firearm would be required to be registered with the Michigan State Police. These firearms are highly regulated, and may only be possessed by persons cleared through a background check.

Allowing for the legal possession of SBRs and SBSs in Michigan would open an entirely new economic market in the state. Under current Michigan laws, firearm manufactures in Michigan are prohibited from making or selling SBRs and SBSs, even if they are to be sold in other states. SB 610 would open a market of 42 states that Michigan manufacturers would be able to market their products in. The bill would also allow Michigan's federal firearm licensees (FFL) (licensed firearm dealers), who have the required Buearu of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive (BATFE) issued special occupational tax (SOT) stamp (an additional $500.00 per year fee, in addition to the standard FFL fee) to carry these additional products to sell that previously were prohibited. The economic benefit of this bill could create additional jobs and bring additional revenue to Michigan-based companies.

Thank you,
[INSERT YOUR NAME]
View Quote


Thanks to snakeman48 for his additions.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 9:49:08 AM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rjbergen:

Huh?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rjbergen:
Originally Posted By MidMichHunter:
That's our tax $ hard at work right there...

Huh?


The whole process is too involved, too many votes/hearing & too much back and forth. No wonder why things take so long to get done in Lansing.  It just seem to me there has to be a more efficient way to run things.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 10:13:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MidMichHunter:

The whole process is too involved, too many votes/hearing & too much back and forth. No wonder why things take so long to get done in Lansing.  It just seem to me there has to be a more efficient way to run things.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MidMichHunter:
Originally Posted By rjbergen:
Originally Posted By MidMichHunter:
That's our tax $ hard at work right there...

Huh?

The whole process is too involved, too many votes/hearing & too much back and forth. No wonder why things take so long to get done in Lansing.  It just seem to me there has to be a more efficient way to run things.

You should look at some of the more complicated bills, this is a simple bill for Lansing. Besides the second committee hearing that added the ammendment, it's moving about as quickly as a bill can in Lansing.
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 6:15:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Link Posted: 3/7/2014 8:30:34 PM EDT
[#18]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MidMichHunter:
The whole process is too involved, too many votes/hearing & too much back and forth. No wonder why things take so long to get done in Lansing.  It just seem to me there has to be a more efficient way to run things.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MidMichHunter:



Originally Posted By rjbergen:


Originally Posted By MidMichHunter:

That's our tax $ hard at work right there...


Huh?




The whole process is too involved, too many votes/hearing & too much back and forth. No wonder why things take so long to get done in Lansing.  It just seem to me there has to be a more efficient way to run things.
Careful what you wish for, Obama could just issue an executive order and end this for us



 
Link Posted: 3/8/2014 3:52:58 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rjbergen:
It is my current understanding (from the House Judiciary meeting minutes and the House Journal) that SB 610 is currently awaiting a second reading in front of the whole House. As such, it is time to start emailing our local Representatives to show our support and urge them to support SB 610 when it comes before the whole House for a vote. Below, you will find a form letter I have written (modified from the one I posted on page 6 of this thread) that you can use/modify to send to your local Representative. Let's keep the pressure on them to make sure this is passed quickly.



Thanks to snakeman48 for his additions.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rjbergen:
It is my current understanding (from the House Judiciary meeting minutes and the House Journal) that SB 610 is currently awaiting a second reading in front of the whole House. As such, it is time to start emailing our local Representatives to show our support and urge them to support SB 610 when it comes before the whole House for a vote. Below, you will find a form letter I have written (modified from the one I posted on page 6 of this thread) that you can use/modify to send to your local Representative. Let's keep the pressure on them to make sure this is passed quickly.

Rep. [INSERT REP'S NAME],

Currently, SB 610 has been reported out of the House Judiciary Committee favorably 8-0 and has been referred to the order of Second Reading of Bills. This bill was passed unanimously in the Senate Judiciary Committee only 8 days after it was introduced. Less than a month after being referred to the committee of the whole, it was passed by a 36-2 vote. I strongly urge you to support this bill when it comes before the House of Representatives.

SB 610 would align Michigan with 41 other states that currently follow federal firearms laws and allow for the legal possession of properly registered short barrel rifles (SBR) and short barrel shotguns (SBS). An individual wishing to take possession of such a firearm must submit an application form, passport-quality photograph, fingerprint cards, and $200 special tax to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives(BATFE). The BATFE conducts a thorough background investigation and processes the application, usually taking 6 months or more to reach a conclusion of approval or denial. If approved, the individual's firearm is then registered with the BATFE (note: this is not done with most firearms in the United States) and under SB 610, the firearm would be required to be registered with the Michigan State Police. These firearms are highly regulated, and may only be possessed by persons cleared through a background check.

Allowing for the legal possession of SBRs and SBSs in Michigan would open an entirely new economic market in the state. Under current Michigan laws, firearm manufactures in Michigan are prohibited from making or selling SBRs and SBSs, even if they are to be sold in other states. SB 610 would open a market of 42 states that Michigan manufacturers would be able to market their products in. The bill would also allow Michigan's federal firearm licensees (FFL) (licensed firearm dealers), who have the required Buearu of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive (BATFE) issued special occupational tax (SOT) stamp (an additional $500.00 per year fee, in addition to the standard FFL fee) to carry these additional products to sell that previously were prohibited. The economic benefit of this bill could create additional jobs and bring additional revenue to Michigan-based companies.Again, I urge you to place this bill before the House Judiciary Committee for review.

Thank you,
[INSERT YOUR NAME]


Thanks to snakeman48 for his additions.


Don't you need to get rid of that last sentence since it already passed the House Judiciary Committee?
Link Posted: 3/8/2014 3:55:08 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By coctailer:
Dudes, the SBR bill n Washington State passed the Senate and is headed to the Governors desk.

Hopefully MI will see this and follow their example.
View Quote



Damn, they beat us.

House needs to get off its collective asses and move this thing forward. Better to do it now.

Link Posted: 3/8/2014 4:51:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: HuskyKMA] [#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SilentType:



Damn, they beat us.

House needs to get off its collective asses and move this thing forward. Better to do it now.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SilentType:
Originally Posted By coctailer:
Dudes, the SBR bill n Washington State passed the Senate and is headed to the Governors desk.

Hopefully MI will see this and follow their example.



Damn, they beat us.

House needs to get off its collective asses and move this thing forward. Better to do it now.



We're pulling for you guys as well! Keep at it. We thought our bill was dead a week ago but kept the phone calls and emails going, and then all of a sudden it just happened in a span of about 24 hours.
Link Posted: 3/8/2014 5:55:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Link Posted: 3/8/2014 6:59:03 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wolverine05:

Don't you need to get rid of that last sentence since it already passed the House Judiciary Committee?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wolverine05:
Originally Posted By rjbergen:
It is my current understanding (from the House Judiciary meeting minutes and the House Journal) that SB 610 is currently awaiting a second reading in front of the whole House. As such, it is time to start emailing our local Representatives to show our support and urge them to support SB 610 when it comes before the whole House for a vote. Below, you will find a form letter I have written (modified from the one I posted on page 6 of this thread) that you can use/modify to send to your local Representative. Let's keep the pressure on them to make sure this is passed quickly.

Rep. [INSERT REP'S NAME],

Currently, SB 610 has been reported out of the House Judiciary Committee favorably 8-0 and has been referred to the order of Second Reading of Bills. This bill was passed unanimously in the Senate Judiciary Committee only 8 days after it was introduced. Less than a month after being referred to the committee of the whole, it was passed by a 36-2 vote. I strongly urge you to support this bill when it comes before the House of Representatives.

SB 610 would align Michigan with 41 other states that currently follow federal firearms laws and allow for the legal possession of properly registered short barrel rifles (SBR) and short barrel shotguns (SBS). An individual wishing to take possession of such a firearm must submit an application form, passport-quality photograph, fingerprint cards, and $200 special tax to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives(BATFE). The BATFE conducts a thorough background investigation and processes the application, usually taking 6 months or more to reach a conclusion of approval or denial. If approved, the individual's firearm is then registered with the BATFE (note: this is not done with most firearms in the United States) and under SB 610, the firearm would be required to be registered with the Michigan State Police. These firearms are highly regulated, and may only be possessed by persons cleared through a background check.

Allowing for the legal possession of SBRs and SBSs in Michigan would open an entirely new economic market in the state. Under current Michigan laws, firearm manufactures in Michigan are prohibited from making or selling SBRs and SBSs, even if they are to be sold in other states. SB 610 would open a market of 42 states that Michigan manufacturers would be able to market their products in. The bill would also allow Michigan's federal firearm licensees (FFL) (licensed firearm dealers), who have the required Buearu of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive (BATFE) issued special occupational tax (SOT) stamp (an additional $500.00 per year fee, in addition to the standard FFL fee) to carry these additional products to sell that previously were prohibited. The economic benefit of this bill could create additional jobs and bring additional revenue to Michigan-based companies.

Thank you,
[INSERT YOUR NAME]


Thanks to snakeman48 for his additions.

Don't you need to get rid of that last sentence since it already passed the House Judiciary Committee?

Yup. Missed that. Fixed in my post and here.
Link Posted: 3/10/2014 8:13:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: MichMan1] [#24]
rjbergen, Thanks for your post, I stand corrected.  H1 is before the full House awaiting a third reading.  Thanks!
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 4:32:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: dclark77] [#25]
Shows it passed the full house vote today.

103 Yeas. To 6 Nays.

Shows returned to Senate.

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/03/michigan_house_takes_aim_at_pu.html#incart_river_defaultd
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 5:27:27 PM EDT
[#26]
Yahoooeeeee!  One more step towards our goal.
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 5:30:05 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dclark77:
Shows it passed the full house vote today.

103 Yeas. To 6 Nays.

Shows returned to Senate.

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/03/michigan_house_takes_aim_at_pu.html#incart_river_defaultd
View Quote

The amount of misleading and/or incorrect information in that article is simply staggering.
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 5:30:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Hot F'in Dang!
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 8:22:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: cybersniper] [#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rjbergen:

The amount of misleading and/or incorrect information in that article is simply staggering.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rjbergen:
Originally Posted By dclark77:
Shows it passed the full house vote today.

103 Yeas. To 6 Nays.

Shows returned to Senate.

http://www.mlive.com/lansing-news/index.ssf/2014/03/michigan_house_takes_aim_at_pu.html#incart_river_defaultd

The amount of misleading and/or incorrect information in that article is simply staggering.


Its the press. Not the truth. The truth is too boring and makes too much sense. No one would care then, which equals, no one would read then.
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 8:55:11 PM EDT
[#30]
does the senate have to vote again because of changes?
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 8:58:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Jmacken37] [#31]
It's been a long time since I looked into this stuff, but I believe because there are modifications, the Senate and the House have to convene a "conference committee" to reconcile the differences and then the bill can go to the Governor.

Actually, the below is a nice summary...

If a bill is passed in a different form by the second house, the bill must be returned to the house of origin and one of the following occurs:

a. If the amendment(s) or substitute bill of the second house is accepted in the house of origin, the bill is enrolled, printed, and sent to the Governor. It should also be noted that either house may amend an amendment made by the other to a bill or joint resolution. At any time while in possession of the bill, either house may recede from its position in whole or in part and the bill may be returned to the other house for this purpose. If this further action is agreed to by both houses, the bill is ordered enrolled.

b. If the amendment(s) or substitute proposal of the second house is rejected in the house of origin, the bill is then sent to a conference committee (a special committee composed of three legislators from each house) which attempts to compromise differences between the two versions of the bill. The conference committee can consider only issues in the bill upon which there is disagreement between the two houses. However, when the agreement arrived at by the conferees is such that it affects other parts of the bill, such as in an appropriations measure, the conferees may recommend further amendments to conform with the agreement. The conferees may also recommend corrections to any errors in the bill. The conference committee may reach a compromise approved by at least a majority of the conferees from each house, and submit a report to the house of origin. If adopted, the report and bill are transmitted to the second house. If the conference committee report is approved in the second house, the bill is then enrolled, printed, and sent to the Governor. A conference report may not be amended by either house. If the conference committee is notable to agree, or if the report is rejected by either house, a second conference committee is appointed. When a second conference has met and the two houses are still unable to agree, no further conference is in order.

Approval by Governor

Upon receipt of an enrolled bill, the Governor has fourteen days to consider the bill. The Governor may: a.Sign the bill, which then either becomes law at the expiration of ninety days after the Legislature adjourns sine die or on a date beyond the ninetieth day specified in the bill. If the bill has been given immediate effect by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house, the bill will become law after the Governor signs the bill and files it with the Secretary of State or on a day specified in the bill.
b.Veto the bill and return it to the house of origin with a message stating the Governor's objections.
c.Choose not to sign or veto the bill. If the bill is neither signed nor vetoed, the bill becomes law fourteen days after having reached the Governor's desk if the Legislature is in session or in recess. If the Legislature should adjourn sine die before the end of the fourteen days, the unsigned bill does not become law. If the Legislature has adjourned by the time the bill reaches the Governor, he or she has fourteen days to consider the bill. If the Governor fails to approve the bill, it does not become law.
Legislative Veto Response

If the Governor vetoes a bill while the Legislature is in session or recess, one of the following actions may occur: a.The Legislature may override the veto by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house. The bill then becomes law.
b.The bill may not receive the necessary two-thirds vote and thus the attempt to override the veto will fail.
c.The bill may be tabled.
d.The bill may be re-referred to a committee.
View Quote


http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-29701_29704-2836--,00.html
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 9:02:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: yagermeister] [#32]
cool thanks, now will Snyder sign it ??? ugh cant wait till it over
well according to that and the vote even if he vetos it ,it will still probably become law WOOT!
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 10:04:43 PM EDT
[#33]
Time to start calling the Governor's office.
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 10:13:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By yagermeister:
does the senate have to vote again because of changes?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By yagermeister:
does the senate have to vote again because of changes?

Yes. See below.
Originally Posted By Jmacken37:
It's been a long time since I looked into this stuff, but I believe because there are modifications, the Senate and the House have to convene a "conference committee" to reconcile the differences and then the bill can go to the Governor.

Actually, the below is a nice summary...

If a bill is passed in a different form by the second house, the bill must be returned to the house of origin and one of the following occurs:

a. If the amendment(s) or substitute bill of the second house is accepted in the house of origin, the bill is enrolled, printed, and sent to the Governor. It should also be noted that either house may amend an amendment made by the other to a bill or joint resolution. At any time while in possession of the bill, either house may recede from its position in whole or in part and the bill may be returned to the other house for this purpose. If this further action is agreed to by both houses, the bill is ordered enrolled.

b. If the amendment(s) or substitute proposal of the second house is rejected in the house of origin, the bill is then sent to a conference committee (a special committee composed of three legislators from each house) which attempts to compromise differences between the two versions of the bill. The conference committee can consider only issues in the bill upon which there is disagreement between the two houses. However, when the agreement arrived at by the conferees is such that it affects other parts of the bill, such as in an appropriations measure, the conferees may recommend further amendments to conform with the agreement. The conferees may also recommend corrections to any errors in the bill. The conference committee may reach a compromise approved by at least a majority of the conferees from each house, and submit a report to the house of origin. If adopted, the report and bill are transmitted to the second house. If the conference committee report is approved in the second house, the bill is then enrolled, printed, and sent to the Governor. A conference report may not be amended by either house. If the conference committee is notable to agree, or if the report is rejected by either house, a second conference committee is appointed. When a second conference has met and the two houses are still unable to agree, no further conference is in order.

Approval by Governor

Upon receipt of an enrolled bill, the Governor has fourteen days to consider the bill. The Governor may: a.Sign the bill, which then either becomes law at the expiration of ninety days after the Legislature adjourns sine die or on a date beyond the ninetieth day specified in the bill. If the bill has been given immediate effect by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house, the bill will become law after the Governor signs the bill and files it with the Secretary of State or on a day specified in the bill.
b.Veto the bill and return it to the house of origin with a message stating the Governor's objections.
c.Choose not to sign or veto the bill. If the bill is neither signed nor vetoed, the bill becomes law fourteen days after having reached the Governor's desk if the Legislature is in session or in recess. If the Legislature should adjourn sine die before the end of the fourteen days, the unsigned bill does not become law. If the Legislature has adjourned by the time the bill reaches the Governor, he or she has fourteen days to consider the bill. If the Governor fails to approve the bill, it does not become law.
Legislative Veto Response

If the Governor vetoes a bill while the Legislature is in session or recess, one of the following actions may occur: a.The Legislature may override the veto by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to and serving in each house. The bill then becomes law.
b.The bill may not receive the necessary two-thirds vote and thus the attempt to override the veto will fail.
c.The bill may be tabled.
d.The bill may be re-referred to a committee.


http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,4669,7-192-29701_29704-2836--,00.html

I have a strong feeling that the Senate will approve the ammendment without question. Hopefully they'll put it on the schedule for next week.
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 10:14:35 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By yagermeister:
cool thanks, now will Snyder sign it ??? ugh cant wait till it over
well according to that and the vote even if he vetos it ,it will still probably become law WOOT!
View Quote

He'd be an idiot to veto it considering the overwhelming yeas in the legislature. However, he's looking like a one term governor so he may not care and do it just to piss us off.
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 10:24:05 PM EDT
[#36]
Thanks for the updates everyone! This is looking good so far!
Link Posted: 3/13/2014 11:35:34 PM EDT
[#37]
Link Posted: 3/14/2014 7:15:40 AM EDT
[#38]
Got a line on Colt Commando Semiautos!
Link Posted: 3/14/2014 11:18:24 AM EDT
[#39]
Mmmm. Can. Not. Wait.
Link Posted: 3/14/2014 11:34:32 AM EDT
[#40]
I have an AR pistol, registered as a pistol, how do I make it a SBR if & when this passes?   I know I have to send the form4 into the BATF w/ a $200 check, but is that it?  Do I need to do anything with MSP to change the classification from a pistol to a SBR?
Link Posted: 3/14/2014 12:20:31 PM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MidMichHunter:
I have an AR pistol, registered as a pistol, how do I make it a SBR if & when this passes?   I know I have to send the form4 into the BATF w/ a $200 check, but is that it?  Do I need to do anything with MSP to change the classification from a pistol to a SBR?
View Quote

I know you have to have it engraved with your name ?
Link Posted: 3/14/2014 12:44:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: cybersniper] [#42]
Since its already registered with MSP as a pistol your all set with them. Just have to fill out the ATF Form 1(Form 1 is to make, Form 4 is to transfer an already made one from someone else) in duplicate original (ink signed both copies) and have your local Chief LEO sign the backs or set up a Trust and go that route. If your putting them in your name ( not a Trust) then you also need the ATF Declaration of Citizenship form (Form#5330.20) in duplicate. Two finger print cards done by local LE and two passport size photos of yourself to staple to the Form1. All of that along with your $200 check to the ATF. Wait about a year. Then once your approved form comes back get your name, city, state engraved on the serialized part (usually the lower) then slap whatever upper, or in your case a stock, you want on it. Some get it engraved while waiting for the ATF. Some don't incase they get denied for some reason.

Also, all of the above has to be done for each firearm you what to SBR/SBS. So, if you have two lowers and a shotgun to submit, you'll need 6 forms, 6 finger print cards, 6 photos, three $200 checks, etc. I know the Feds will get getting at least $600 of my money as I have an AR lower, Sig 556, and Mossberg 590 to submit.
Link Posted: 3/14/2014 2:03:36 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cybersniper:
Since its already registered with MSP as a pistol your all set with them. Just have to fill out the ATF Form 1(Form 1 is to make, Form 4 is to transfer an already made one from someone else) in duplicate original (ink signed both copies) and have your local Chief LEO sign the backs or set up a Trust and go that route. If your putting them in your name ( not a Trust) then you also need the ATF Declaration of Citizenship form (Form#5330.20) in duplicate. Two finger print cards done by local LE and two passport size photos of yourself to staple to the Form1. All of that along with your $200 check to the ATF. Wait about a year. Then once your approved form comes back get your name, city, state engraved on the serialized part (usually the lower) then slap whatever upper, or in your case a stock, you want on it. Some get it engraved while waiting for the ATF. Some don't incase they get denied for some reason.

Also, all of the above has to be done for each firearm you what to SBR/SBS. So, if you have two lowers and a shotgun to submit, you'll need 6 forms, 6 finger print cards, 6 photos, three $200 checks, etc. I know the Feds will get getting at least $600 of my money as I have an AR lower, Sig 556, and Mossberg 590 to submit.
View Quote

Cyber knows his stuff. If it will remain under 26", you only have to deal with the ATF. If it's going to be over 26", I'm not sure how that's going to be handled. I would assume since it is a pistol now, it would stay a pistol as long as it's under 30" and you don't request it to be removed.
Link Posted: 3/14/2014 2:38:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Jmacken37] [#44]
Engraving requirements from the NFA Handbook...

For firearms manufactured on or after January 30, 2002, this information must be to a minimum depth of .003 inch.

The additional information includes:
(1) The model, if such designation has been made;
(2) The caliber or gauge;
(3) The manufacturer’s name (or recognized abbreviation); and
(4) The city and State (or recognized abbreviation) where the manufacturer maintains its place
of business.122
View Quote
Link Posted: 3/14/2014 5:52:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cybersniper:
Since its already registered with MSP as a pistol your all set with them. Just have to fill out the ATF Form 1(Form 1 is to make, Form 4 is to transfer an already made one from someone else) in duplicate original (ink signed both copies) and have your local Chief LEO sign the backs or set up a Trust and go that route. If your putting them in your name ( not a Trust) then you also need the ATF Declaration of Citizenship form (Form#5330.20) in duplicate. Two finger print cards done by local LE and two passport size photos of yourself to staple to the Form1. All of that along with your $200 check to the ATF. Wait about a year. Then once your approved form comes back get your name, city, state engraved on the serialized part (usually the lower) then slap whatever upper, or in your case a stock, you want on it. Some get it engraved while waiting for the ATF. Some don't incase they get denied for some reason.

Also, all of the above has to be done for each firearm you what to SBR/SBS. So, if you have two lowers and a shotgun to submit, you'll need 6 forms, 6 finger print cards, 6 photos, three $200 checks, etc. I know the Feds will get getting at least $600 of my money as I have an AR lower, Sig 556, and Mossberg 590 to submit.
View Quote

You can engrave the barrel if you so choose.  You don't have tho have your name on the serialized part.
Link Posted: 3/15/2014 10:03:52 AM EDT
[#46]
Ok, so if a fellow has a Aow like a serbu shorty or something with a 12" barrel (basically a Rem 870 with pistol grip and 12" bbl), will it require paperwork to add a sholder stock?  Or since it is already on a form 4 can you just proceed?  Just axing.
Link Posted: 3/15/2014 1:43:53 PM EDT
[#47]
Since your changing the classification to a short barreled shotgun it will require a Form 1, Application to Make And Register a Firearm. It will need the full paper work, $200, and waiting again. Also, its my understanding that since you'll be adding a stock to it, it can never go back to an AOW.
Link Posted: 3/16/2014 11:24:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: greco] [#48]
It looks like it would be a bad move to reclassify the AOW because you can own an NFA AOW in any state (or most states), whereas an sbs/sbr is not legal in more states. Thanks for the  reply.
Link Posted: 3/16/2014 2:07:24 PM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By greco:
It looks like it would be a bad move to reclassify the AOW because you can own an NFA AOW in any state (or most states), whereas an sbs/sbr is not legal in more states. Thanks for the  reply.
View Quote

SBRs/SBSs are currently legal in 42 states, and hopefully MI will make that 43 states in the near future.
Link Posted: 3/16/2014 2:09:40 PM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cybersniper:
Since your changing the classification to a short barreled shotgun it will require a Form 1, Application to Make And Register a Firearm. It will need the full paper work, $200, and waiting again. Also, its my understanding that since you'll be adding a stock to it, it can never go back to an AOW.
View Quote

That's my understanding too. The only NFA weapons that trumps the others is machine guns. They may have short barrels and stocks or no stocks, but they're still machine guns and you're not required to register them as SBRs or AOWs.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 8
Top Top