Posted: 8/12/2026 4:28:00 PM EDT
| if the NFA is removed tonight at midnight, does michigan have any laws that state something to the effect that "possession is only legal when licensed by the federal .gov/" that would make ownership illegal since there is no more licensing (no more NFA) |
|
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931 750.224 Weapons; manufacture, sale, or possession as felony; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "muffler" or "silencer" defined. Sec. 224. (1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess any of the following: (a) A machine gun or firearm that shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than 1 shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. (b) A muffler or silencer. (c) A bomb or bombshell. (d) A blackjack, slungshot, billy, metallic knuckles, sand club, sand bag, or bludgeon. (e) A device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance designed to render a person temporarily or permanently disabled by the ejection, release, or emission of a gas or other substance. (2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following: (a) A self-defense spray or foam device as defined in section 224d. (b) A person manufacturing firearms, explosives, or munitions of war by virtue of a contract with a department of the government of the United States. (c) A person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or the secretary's delegate to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun, or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in subsection (1). (4) As used in this chapter, "muffler" or "silencer" means 1 or more of the following: (a) A device for muffling, silencing, or deadening the report of a firearm. (b) A combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer. (c) A part, designed or redesigned, and intended only for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer. The way I read this, Michigan residents who don't already own an approved (via tax stamp) suppressor are about to lose the ability to purchase them. After they passed the $0 Tax Stamps and the strategy of going after the constitutionality of untaxed items under the NFA, I was worried this might happen so I'm currently waiting for approval on the last can I wanted to ensure I have before the legal mess starts. |
|
KTangoMike.......Sadly, I pretty much have the same read on this situation as you do. Really blows for me as I was gonna go drop my first can in layaway next week. Here is some more info I found on the subject......... " Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette issued Formal Opinion No. 7260 on September 2, 2011, stating that Michigan residents can legally possess, manufacture, and sell firearm silencers or mufflers if they have proper licensing and approval from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF" If they arent listed on a form 4 with taxes paid, then we really wouldnt have any type of license or approval from the ATF to possess them. At least thats my read on it. I really hate all this confusing crap. |
Not you typical Elmer Fudd type duck hunter.
To "turn them on" you've got to rub em and talk dirty to them. - pattymcn
To "turn them on" you've got to rub em and talk dirty to them. - pattymcn
|
Short answer: we need new legislation that fixes the issue. Highly unlikely. Nessel could issue an opinion stating that the 4473 and background check counts as licensing/approval. Highly unlikely. Beyond that, we'll have to challenge in court since the method of license is (or will be soon) moot. Not a lawyer, just what I understood to be the outcome had the BBB removed the NFA in the first place. |
|
From Silencer Shop... NFA States (15) — The NFA process still applies. Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin. State law still requires the Form 4 process here, and we handle the paperwork end to end — same as always. LINK |
Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.---John Adams
|
Guys, first off, the NFA isn't abolished and struck from the federal code. The registration infrastructure will still work as far as I know. It's enjoined from enforcement at a federal level. My "not a lawyer" take from the GD thread, with some new interpretations on the SBR/SBSs, open to opinions, especially takes from actual lawyers. MI SBR law: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-224b "THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931 750.224b Short-barreled shotgun or rifle; making, manufacturing, transferring, or possessing as felony; penalty; exceptions; short-barreled shotgun or rifle 26 inches or less; short-barreled shotgun or rifle greater than 26 inches; violation of subsection (5) as civil infraction; seizure and forfeiture; applicability of MCL 776.20 to subsection (3). Sec. 224b. (1) A person shall not make, manufacture, transfer, or possess a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled rifle. (2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle that is lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law. (4) A person, excluding a manufacturer, lawfully making, transferring, or possessing a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle that is 26 inches or less in length under this section shall comply with section 2 or 2a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422 and 28.422a. (5) A person who possesses a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle that is greater than 26 inches in length under this section shall possess a copy of the federal registration of that short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle while transporting or using that short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle and shall present that federal registration to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer. (6) A person who violates subsection (5) is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $100.00. A short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle carried in violation of subsection (5) is subject to immediate seizure by a peace officer. If a peace officer seizes a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle under this subsection, the person has 45 days in which to display the federal registration to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer. If the person displays the federal registration to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer within the 45-day period, the authorized employee of that law enforcement entity shall return the short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to the person unless the person is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. If the person does not display the federal registration within the 45-day period, the short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle is subject to seizure and forfeiture in the same manner that property is subject to seizure and forfeiture under sections 4701 to 4709 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.4701 to 600.4709. (7) Section 20 of chapter XVI of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 776.20, applies to subsection (3)." TLDR; If you could carry around a copy of your 4473, it proves it was lawfully transferred by the ATF. Now here is where it gets ridiculous, if your SBR/SBS(defined a less than a 16in barrel for a rifle, 18in for a shotgun) is less than 26in OAL, you only have to comply with the cited MI laws related to the Firearms Sales Records and CPL law under section 4. So an SBR is actually legal if the OAL is less than 26in. BUT if you have a 26in OAL or greater SBR, you won't have a "federal registration" cited in section 5, so you will have a state civil infraction hanging over you, open to confiscation. MI for Suppressors Riding the conclusion of the former AG's opinion without getting into the whole opinion: https://handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/MIAGOpinionOnSuppressors.pdf "It is my opinion, therefore, that the possession, manufacture, or sale of a firearm silencer is permitted in Michigan under MCL 750.224(1)(b) if the person is licensed or approved to possess, manufacture, or sell such a device by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as required by MCL 750.224(3)(c). Possession, manufacture, or sale of a firearm silencer by an unlicensed or unapproved person is a felony, punishable by up to five years imprisonment under MCL 750.224(2)." TLDR; Here again if you carried a copy of the 4473 around for your suppressor, it may suffice the opinion as written. The ATF is approving the transfer. |
|
Originally Posted By RedFox1911: Guys, first off, the NFA isn't abolished and struck from the federal code. The registration infrastructure will still work as far as I know. It's enjoined from enforcement at a federal level. My "not a lawyer" take from the GD thread, with some new interpretations on the SBR/SBSs, open to opinions, especially takes from actual lawyers. MI SBR law: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-750-224b "THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931 750.224b Short-barreled shotgun or rifle; making, manufacturing, transferring, or possessing as felony; penalty; exceptions; short-barreled shotgun or rifle 26 inches or less; short-barreled shotgun or rifle greater than 26 inches; violation of subsection (5) as civil infraction; seizure and forfeiture; applicability of MCL 776.20 to subsection (3). Sec. 224b. (1) A person shall not make, manufacture, transfer, or possess a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled rifle. (2) A person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle that is lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law. (4) A person, excluding a manufacturer, lawfully making, transferring, or possessing a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle that is 26 inches or less in length under this section shall comply with section 2 or 2a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422 and 28.422a. (5) A person who possesses a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle that is greater than 26 inches in length under this section shall possess a copy of the federal registration of that short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle while transporting or using that short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle and shall present that federal registration to a peace officer upon request by that peace officer. (6) A person who violates subsection (5) is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be fined not more than $100.00. A short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle carried in violation of subsection (5) is subject to immediate seizure by a peace officer. If a peace officer seizes a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle under this subsection, the person has 45 days in which to display the federal registration to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer. If the person displays the federal registration to an authorized employee of the law enforcement entity that employs the peace officer within the 45-day period, the authorized employee of that law enforcement entity shall return the short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to the person unless the person is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. If the person does not display the federal registration within the 45-day period, the short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle is subject to seizure and forfeiture in the same manner that property is subject to seizure and forfeiture under sections 4701 to 4709 of the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.4701 to 600.4709. (7) Section 20 of chapter XVI of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 776.20, applies to subsection (3)." TLDR; If you could carry around a copy of your 4473, it proves it was lawfully transferred by the ATF. Now here is where it gets ridiculous, if your SBR/SBS(defined a less than a 16in barrel for a rifle, 18in for a shotgun) is less than 26in OAL, you only have to comply with the cited MI laws related to the Firearms Sales Records and CPL law under section 4. So an SBR is actually legal if the OAL is less than 26in. BUT if you have a 26in OAL or greater SBR, you won't have a "federal registration" cited in section 5, so you will have a state civil infraction hanging over you, open to confiscation. MI for Suppressors Riding the conclusion of the former AG's opinion without getting into the whole opinion: https://handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/MIAGOpinionOnSuppressors.pdf "It is my opinion, therefore, that the possession, manufacture, or sale of a firearm silencer is permitted in Michigan under MCL 750.224(1)(b) if the person is licensed or approved to possess, manufacture, or sell such a device by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as required by MCL 750.224(3)(c). Possession, manufacture, or sale of a firearm silencer by an unlicensed or unapproved person is a felony, punishable by up to five years imprisonment under MCL 750.224(2)." TLDR; Here again if you carried a copy of the 4473 around for your suppressor, it may suffice the opinion as written. The ATF is approving the transfer. |
Yeah I’m gonna need someone to make it simple for me. I can’t read legal.  Yes/no/maybe so is what I’m looking for. Not demanding that from anyone, so please don’t jump at me. I want to believe that if the NFA was vacated, that means MI’s wording would mean what was on the NFA was legal, hence now it’s legal here… But again, I am emphatically not a lawyer. I am dyslexic at reading law. |
Let's Go Red Wings!
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
Beautifying the world one logo at a time since 1993.
Soli Deo Gloria
|
Originally Posted By RedFox1911: MI for Suppressors Riding the conclusion of the former AG's opinion without getting into the whole opinion: https://handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/MIAGOpinionOnSuppressors.pdf "It is my opinion, therefore, that the possession, manufacture, or sale of a firearm silencer is permitted in Michigan under MCL 750.224(1)(b) if the person is licensed or approved to possess, manufacture, or sell such a device by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as required by MCL 750.224(3)(c). Possession, manufacture, or sale of a firearm silencer by an unlicensed or unapproved person is a felony, punishable by up to five years imprisonment under MCL 750.224(2)." TLDR; Here again if you carried a copy of the 4473 around for your suppressor, it may suffice the opinion as written. The ATF is approving the transfer. Originally Posted By RedFox1911: MI for Suppressors Riding the conclusion of the former AG's opinion without getting into the whole opinion: https://handgunlaw.us/documents/agopinions/MIAGOpinionOnSuppressors.pdf "It is my opinion, therefore, that the possession, manufacture, or sale of a firearm silencer is permitted in Michigan under MCL 750.224(1)(b) if the person is licensed or approved to possess, manufacture, or sell such a device by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as required by MCL 750.224(3)(c). Possession, manufacture, or sale of a firearm silencer by an unlicensed or unapproved person is a felony, punishable by up to five years imprisonment under MCL 750.224(2)." TLDR; Here again if you carried a copy of the 4473 around for your suppressor, it may suffice the opinion as written. The ATF is approving the transfer. The linked letter/opinion is from 2011, and is not in response to the recent SC case. Attached File Originally Posted By macman37: Yeah I’m gonna need someone to make it simple for me. I can’t read legal. Yes/no/maybe so is what I’m looking for. Not demanding that from anyone, so please don’t jump at me. I want to believe that if the NFA was vacated, that means MI’s wording would mean what was on the NFA was legal, hence now it’s legal here… But again, I am emphatically not a lawyer. I am dyslexic at reading law. Again, Michigan law says someone needs to be Federally approved/licensed to purchase/possess a silencer. Only way to do that is Form 4. Hence the link I posted on my previous response. Silencer Shop says nothing has changed for Michigan. |
Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.---John Adams
|
Originally Posted By intheburbs: The linked letter/opinion is from 2011, and is not in response to the recent SC case. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/145716/mich_jpg-3811102.JPG Again, Michigan law says someone needs to be Federally approved/licensed to purchase/possess a silencer. Only way to do that is Form 4. Hence the link I posted on my previous response. Silencer Shop says nothing has changed for Michigan. So the 4473 form is not a federal approval? |
|
Originally Posted By CTM90: So the 4473 form is not a federal approval? Most likely not, complicated by the fact a 4473 doesn't always need a NICS check in the state of Michigan. If Nessel issued an opinion tomorrow saying it was, we'd be golden. No chance in hell however. So, for now, we live in a murky grey area until both the ATF and state start to figure shit out. |
|
Originally Posted By CTM90: So the 4473 form is not a federal approval? Originally Posted By CTM90: Originally Posted By intheburbs: The linked letter/opinion is from 2011, and is not in response to the recent SC case. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/145716/mich_jpg-3811102.JPG Again, Michigan law says someone needs to be Federally approved/licensed to purchase/possess a silencer. Only way to do that is Form 4. Hence the link I posted on my previous response. Silencer Shop says nothing has changed for Michigan. So the 4473 form is not a federal approval? |
In memory of my son Sean James, born 6/25/97. Died 9/16/13.
We will be reunited in heaven.
We will be reunited in heaven.
|
Right now I'm more concerned with SBR's. I really want to put some stocks on things. PSA says that only GOA members who bought a gun FROM PSA are covered under this. I don't know if they're correct or just trying to pump up sales. Same for suppressors from SS. |
In memory of my son Sean James, born 6/25/97. Died 9/16/13.
We will be reunited in heaven.
We will be reunited in heaven.
|
Originally Posted By walldj45: Tagged for interest. I have too many suppressors and would love to sell some of them if the BS goes away. I'd be up for a couple if/when we get clarification. |
In memory of my son Sean James, born 6/25/97. Died 9/16/13.
We will be reunited in heaven.
We will be reunited in heaven.
|
Originally Posted By firedog51d: Right now I'm more concerned with SBR's. I really want to put some stocks on things. PSA says that only GOA members who bought a gun FROM PSA are covered under this. I don't know if they're correct or just trying to pump up sales. Same for suppressors from SS. The retailers are just selling you their line here as far as I can tell. So because of this case being two different ones that were merged together, you want to be a GOA member for most of it and one of these for the engraving part. Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA) FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) Technically because the GOA half of the case didn't ask for relief on the requirement to engrave its still an issue. I personally feel really good about the 26in or shorter OAL guns being legal as a wrote up previously, so long as you are following the other relevant state laws. Of course you must be covered as a plaintiff for now as the federal enforcement is only enjoined for you. |
|
Originally Posted By firedog51d: Right now I'm more concerned with SBR's. I really want to put some stocks on things. PSA says that only GOA members who bought a gun FROM PSA are covered under this. I don't know if they're correct or just trying to pump up sales. Same for suppressors from SS. All so confusing. I bought a “AR pistol” from PSA (10” barrel with a brace). Is that good to put a stock on? Or no, because it was bought as a pistol, not an SBR? This whole situation is just… something. |
"Hey, does this rag smell like chloroform to you?....."
"Ours is the age that is proud of machines that think and suspicious of men who try to." -H. Mumford Jones
"Ours is the age that is proud of machines that think and suspicious of men who try to." -H. Mumford Jones
|
Originally Posted By simplemitch: All so confusing. I bought a “AR pistol” from PSA (10” barrel with a brace). Is that good to put a stock on? Or no, because it was bought as a pistol, not an SBR? This whole situation is just… something. IMO, if you are a plaintiff, the lawsuit permanently enjoined the Transfer, Making, Registration of Firearms, Identification of Firearms, Prohibited Acts, Application to Make, and Application to Transfer at a federal level. (see link at the end for SAF article) Following that setup, Michigan law clearly states, "(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle that is lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under federal law." Because it is legal federally, it is explicitly allowed under MI law. The slight monkey wrench being the following clauses about OAL, but a 10in AR pistol OAL should be less than 26in in its shortest operable configuration and not subject to you providing Federal Registration but is subject to the MI Pistol laws scheme. So long as you are following those laws, either registered or you have an out of state CCW permit, you can slap a stock on that thing right now. Note, separately under the GCA not covered by this case, state to state transfers of short barreled firearms still need to be on Form 4s. Don't engage in interstate commerce with these when they are in SBR configurations. https://saf.org/nfainjunction/ |
|
I am a plaintiff as a member of GOA, FPC, and FPCAF. ATF doesn't have any way to know that. I made a SBR. If I file a form 1 for a silencer, for strict compliance with MI law, would I be at risk? Either for filing the Form 1 while a plaintiff (Form 1 is void because ATF has no way of knowing I am a plaintiff and they can't lawfully approve), Or By filing a Form 1 for a silencer I am somehow acknowledging the existing process is valid, and that I should have obtained one for the SBR? I'll cross post with the long thread in GD. Thanks! |
|
Originally Posted By jchewie1: I am a plaintiff as a member of GOA, FPC, and FPCAF. ATF doesn't have any way to know that. I made a SBR. If I file a form 1 for a silencer, for strict compliance with MI law, would I be at risk? Either for filing the Form 1 while a plaintiff (Form 1 is void because ATF has no way of knowing I am a plaintiff and they can't lawfully approve), Or By filing a Form 1 for a silencer I am somehow acknowledging the existing process is valid, and that I should have obtained one for the SBR? I'll cross post with the long thread in GD. Thanks! My base assumption would be that if you get a properly registered NFA item, whether transferred(form 4) or made(form 1) with a stamp in hand you will be fine. I don't think it acknowledges the process as valid, as ATF is enjoined from enforcing it against you by the court, but you are voluntarily doing it. But beyond that it is a lawyer question TBH. |
|
Originally Posted By RedFox1911: What is the OAL on that? Is it coming as factory SBR? It came with a brace on it so it just got transferred as a handgun. OAL is just over 34" without the brace folded. This is the gun in question: https://iwi.us/firearms/galil-ace/galil-ace-gen-1-pistol-7-62x39-with-stabilizing-brace-13-barrel-limited-run/ |
|
Originally Posted By Zeebz: It came with a brace on it so it just got transferred as a handgun. OAL is just over 34" without the brace folded. This is the gun in question: https://iwi.us/firearms/galil-ace/galil-ace-gen-1-pistol-7-62x39-with-stabilizing-brace-13-barrel-limited-run/ It lists 24 1/8″ Folded, so it would be less than 26in in it's shortest fireable configuration, as long as your register it as a pistol in Michigan or have an out of state CPL you don't need to put it in the NFA from my reading of the law. |
|
I’m somewhat surprised no one here is talking about these. (Snip) Rep. James DeSana (R-Carleton) recently introduced House Bill 6285 to bring Michigan law into line with these federal changes. The bill would: Remove suppressors from Michigan's list of prohibited weapons. Repeal Michigan's separate prohibition on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Eliminate Michigan requirements tied to federal registration of SBRs and SBSs. Leave other Michigan weapons laws unchanged. A companion bill, House Bill 6284 introduced by Rep. Mike Hoadley (R-Au Gres), would make the necessary changes to Michigan's sentencing guidelines. The principle is simple: Michigan residents should not face state criminal penalties for failing to comply with a federal regulatory system that has changed. HB 6285 would remove this conflict and modernize Michigan law to reflect the new federal landscape. |
|
Originally Posted By Raven_Fire: I’m somewhat surprised no one here is talking about these. (Snip) Rep. James DeSana (R-Carleton) recently introduced House Bill 6285 to bring Michigan law into line with these federal changes. The bill would: Remove suppressors from Michigan's list of prohibited weapons. Repeal Michigan's separate prohibition on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Eliminate Michigan requirements tied to federal registration of SBRs and SBSs. Leave other Michigan weapons laws unchanged. A companion bill, House Bill 6284 introduced by Rep. Mike Hoadley (R-Au Gres), would make the necessary changes to Michigan's sentencing guidelines. The principle is simple: Michigan residents should not face state criminal penalties for failing to comply with a federal regulatory system that has changed. HB 6285 would remove this conflict and modernize Michigan law to reflect the new federal landscape. Yeah, because the blue house, blue senate, and by all means gov stretchin gretchin will undoubtedly, exuberantly support it, vote for it and sign it into law. Or not. |
Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.---John Adams
|
Originally Posted By Raven_Fire: I’m somewhat surprised no one here is talking about these. (Snip) Rep. James DeSana (R-Carleton) recently introduced House Bill 6285 to bring Michigan law into line with these federal changes. The bill would: Remove suppressors from Michigan's list of prohibited weapons. Repeal Michigan's separate prohibition on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Eliminate Michigan requirements tied to federal registration of SBRs and SBSs. Leave other Michigan weapons laws unchanged. A companion bill, House Bill 6284 introduced by Rep. Mike Hoadley (R-Au Gres), would make the necessary changes to Michigan's sentencing guidelines. The principle is simple: Michigan residents should not face state criminal penalties for failing to comply with a federal regulatory system that has changed. HB 6285 would remove this conflict and modernize Michigan law to reflect the new federal landscape. This is the first I’d heard of it. |
"Hey, does this rag smell like chloroform to you?....."
"Ours is the age that is proud of machines that think and suspicious of men who try to." -H. Mumford Jones
"Ours is the age that is proud of machines that think and suspicious of men who try to." -H. Mumford Jones
|
Originally Posted By intheburbs: Yeah, because the blue house, blue senate, and by all means gov stretchin gretchin will undoubtedly, exuberantly support it, vote for it and sign it into law. Or not. Originally Posted By intheburbs: Originally Posted By Raven_Fire: I’m somewhat surprised no one here is talking about these. (Snip) Rep. James DeSana (R-Carleton) recently introduced House Bill 6285 to bring Michigan law into line with these federal changes. The bill would: Remove suppressors from Michigan's list of prohibited weapons. Repeal Michigan's separate prohibition on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Eliminate Michigan requirements tied to federal registration of SBRs and SBSs. Leave other Michigan weapons laws unchanged. A companion bill, House Bill 6284 introduced by Rep. Mike Hoadley (R-Au Gres), would make the necessary changes to Michigan's sentencing guidelines. The principle is simple: Michigan residents should not face state criminal penalties for failing to comply with a federal regulatory system that has changed. HB 6285 would remove this conflict and modernize Michigan law to reflect the new federal landscape. Yeah, because the blue house, blue senate, and by all means gov stretchin gretchin will undoubtedly, exuberantly support it, vote for it and sign it into law. Or not. That’s the spirit. This is the most positive progress on 2A in the last 92 years. Might as well roll over and die before the fight even gets started. And people wonder how Michigan is going the way of Cali. |
|
Originally Posted By Raven_Fire: That's the spirit. This is the most positive progress on 2A in the last 92 years. Might as well roll over and die before the fight even gets started. And people wonder how Michigan is going the way of Cali. Originally Posted By Raven_Fire: Originally Posted By intheburbs: Originally Posted By Raven_Fire: I'm somewhat surprised no one here is talking about these. (Snip) Rep. James DeSana (R-Carleton) recently introduced House Bill 6285 to bring Michigan law into line with these federal changes. The bill would: Remove suppressors from Michigan's list of prohibited weapons. Repeal Michigan's separate prohibition on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Eliminate Michigan requirements tied to federal registration of SBRs and SBSs. Leave other Michigan weapons laws unchanged. A companion bill, House Bill 6284 introduced by Rep. Mike Hoadley (R-Au Gres), would make the necessary changes to Michigan's sentencing guidelines. The principle is simple: Michigan residents should not face state criminal penalties for failing to comply with a federal regulatory system that has changed. HB 6285 would remove this conflict and modernize Michigan law to reflect the new federal landscape. Yeah, because the blue house, blue senate, and by all means gov stretchin gretchin will undoubtedly, exuberantly support it, vote for it and sign it into law. Or not. That's the spirit. This is the most positive progress on 2A in the last 92 years. Might as well roll over and die before the fight even gets started. And people wonder how Michigan is going the way of Cali. |
In memory of my son Sean James, born 6/25/97. Died 9/16/13.
We will be reunited in heaven.
We will be reunited in heaven.
|
Originally Posted By intheburbs: Yeah, because the blue house, blue senate, and by all means gov stretchin gretchin will undoubtedly, exuberantly support it, vote for it and sign it into law. Or not. Originally Posted By intheburbs: Originally Posted By Raven_Fire: I'm somewhat surprised no one here is talking about these. (Snip) Rep. James DeSana (R-Carleton) recently introduced House Bill 6285 to bring Michigan law into line with these federal changes. The bill would: Remove suppressors from Michigan's list of prohibited weapons. Repeal Michigan's separate prohibition on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Eliminate Michigan requirements tied to federal registration of SBRs and SBSs. Leave other Michigan weapons laws unchanged. A companion bill, House Bill 6284 introduced by Rep. Mike Hoadley (R-Au Gres), would make the necessary changes to Michigan's sentencing guidelines. The principle is simple: Michigan residents should not face state criminal penalties for failing to comply with a federal regulatory system that has changed. HB 6285 would remove this conflict and modernize Michigan law to reflect the new federal landscape. Yeah, because the blue house, blue senate, and by all means gov stretchin gretchin will undoubtedly, exuberantly support it, vote for it and sign it into law. Or not. |
In memory of my son Sean James, born 6/25/97. Died 9/16/13.
We will be reunited in heaven.
We will be reunited in heaven.
|
Originally Posted By Tweek: It is sooo incredibly important to get out and vote in November. We need mass deportations and the university systems in the state cut off from funding by both the state and feds. Then Leftism will be on the back foot in the state and lose elections. Oh, and drop a MOAB on Dearborn. |