AR15.Com Archives
 Michigan SBR
jrzy  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 7:54:41 AM EST
Go?
No Go?
SBR's legal in Michigan
Paid Advertisement
--
kelone  [Member]
3/28/2011 7:55:08 AM EST
no sbr, no cans
Tomislav  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 7:55:19 AM EST
No. Nor are cans. Class III is OK, though.
RDak  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 7:59:30 AM EST
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
No. Nor are cans. Class III is OK, though.


Right, plus, I'm getting conflicting messages on this question on the AG's desk.

I got a response from my State Rep. saying Schutte would be providing an opinion.

But, another member, in the Michigan Hometown section, said an opinion will not be given.

So.........
basp2005  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 8:00:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By kelone:
no sbr, no cans


sucks.
buckfever34  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 8:01:10 AM EST
Nope.
macman37  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 8:01:42 AM EST
Originally Posted By basp2005:

Originally Posted By kelone:
no sbr, no cans


sucks.


Yeah, it does.
RDak  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 8:03:38 AM EST
Originally Posted By macman37:
Originally Posted By basp2005:

Originally Posted By kelone:
no sbr, no cans


sucks.


Yeah, it does.


But we do have that less than 30" law (and longer than 26") that allows CPL holders to carry a rifle or shotgun as a concealed weapon.

That's a pretty good one IMHO.
Tomislav  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 8:05:44 AM EST
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By macman37:
Originally Posted By basp2005:

Originally Posted By kelone:
no sbr, no cans


sucks.


Yeah, it does.


But we do have that less than 30" law (and longer than 26") that allows CPL holders to carry a rifle or shotgun as a concealed weapon.

That's a pretty good one IMHO.



Ya, but I'll let someone else test that in court first, though.
RDak  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 8:06:45 AM EST
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By macman37:
Originally Posted By basp2005:

Originally Posted By kelone:
no sbr, no cans


sucks.


Yeah, it does.


But we do have that less than 30" law (and longer than 26") that allows CPL holders to carry a rifle or shotgun as a concealed weapon.

That's a pretty good one IMHO.



Ya, but I'll let someone else test that in court first, though.


macman37  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 8:07:11 AM EST
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By macman37:
Originally Posted By basp2005:

Originally Posted By kelone:
no sbr, no cans


sucks.


Yeah, it does.


But we do have that less than 30" law (and longer than 26") that allows CPL holders to carry a rifle or shotgun as a concealed weapon.

That's a pretty good one IMHO.


More useful to me would be a SBR or silencer. Preferably, both.
Chris_C  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 8:09:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By macman37:

More useful to me would be a SBR or silencer. Preferably, both.

For years we have been wanting someone to do something, one way or another.


RDak  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 8:10:25 AM EST
Originally Posted By Chris_C:

Originally Posted By macman37:

More useful to me would be a SBR or silencer. Preferably, both.

For years we have been wanting someone to do something, one way or another.




Yeah, and I thought the current AG was going to give an opiniion.

But someone's State Rep said otherwise........even though my State Rep. said he would give an opinion soon.

I'm confused.
matto4785  [Member]
3/28/2011 8:10:45 AM EST
I thought sbr/sbs was ok if it was a c&r too? Wasn't there a guy in allen park or somewhere a year or 2 ago who managed to get a c&r remington 870 ok'd?
RDak  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 8:14:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By matto4785:
I thought sbr/sbs was ok if it was a c&r too? Wasn't there a guy in allen park or somewhere a year or 2 ago who managed to get a c&r remington 870 ok'd?


Not sure about that but it does ring a bell.
macman37  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 8:17:03 AM EST
Originally Posted By matto4785:
I thought sbr/sbs was ok if it was a c&r too? Wasn't there a guy in allen park or somewhere a year or 2 ago who managed to get a c&r remington 870 ok'd?


I don't know where he's from, but some guy at one of the Hometown lunches had a couple of seriously shortened 870s legally in his possession. I held them in my hands. Not my style, but I give him style points.

The hoops, I do not like jumping through them. It's just not worth the hassle on top of the expense.
kelone  [Member]
3/28/2011 8:21:04 AM EST
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By Chris_C:

Originally Posted By macman37:

More useful to me would be a SBR or silencer. Preferably, both.

For years we have been wanting someone to do something, one way or another.




Yeah, and I thought the current AG was going to give an opiniion.

But someone's State Rep said otherwise........even though my State Rep. said he would give an opinion soon.

I'm confused.


I don't see how he could give an opinion that would help - the law is pretty clear:
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.

Only 1a and 1e are excepted when you have the blessing of the treasury.

Here is hoping the republicans can join hands and change that crappy law.
RDak  [Team Member]
3/28/2011 8:24:04 AM EST
Originally Posted By kelone:
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By Chris_C:

Originally Posted By macman37:

More useful to me would be a SBR or silencer. Preferably, both.

For years we have been wanting someone to do something, one way or another.




Yeah, and I thought the current AG was going to give an opiniion.

But someone's State Rep said otherwise........even though my State Rep. said he would give an opinion soon.

I'm confused.


I don't see how he could give an opinion that would help - the law is pretty clear:
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.

Only 1a and 1e are excepted when you have the blessing of the treasury.

Here is hoping the republicans can join hands and change that crappy law.


I think it is suppressors that is up for an AG's opinion.

My mistake.

But, the general argument, is SBR's. SBS's and suppressors all fall under the same licensing requirements as machine guns. Therefore, they should be included in Michigan's machine gun exception.

That is what the AG is hopefully going to address in his suppressor opinion. (I was wrong on SBR's for an AG opinion. )
kelone  [Member]
3/28/2011 8:42:48 AM EST
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By kelone:
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By Chris_C:

Originally Posted By macman37:

More useful to me would be a SBR or silencer. Preferably, both.

For years we have been wanting someone to do something, one way or another.




Yeah, and I thought the current AG was going to give an opiniion.

But someone's State Rep said otherwise........even though my State Rep. said he would give an opinion soon.

I'm confused.


I don't see how he could give an opinion that would help - the law is pretty clear:
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.

Only 1a and 1e are excepted when you have the blessing of the treasury.

Here is hoping the republicans can join hands and change that crappy law.


I think it is suppressors that is up for an AG's opinion.

My mistake.

But, the general argument, is SBR's. SBS's and suppressors all fall under the same licensing requirements as machine guns. Therefore, they should be included in Michigan's machine gun exception.

That is what the AG is hopefully going to address in his suppressor opinion. (I was wrong on SBR's for an AG opinion. )


Right, the AG opinion was only used to determine that 'licensed' in 3c is satisfied by a tax stamp. That only applies to 1a (machine guns) and 1e (contrivances,etc) - "muffler or silencer" is not covered by that exception.
SBR has its own law 750-224b with an exception for treasury c&r , but not licensed.
So it'd be a real stretch for the AG to opinion either cans or sbr into being legal
Paid Advertisement
--