FYI


New Senate Bill

So if this passes we can make SBRs and Silencers without tax stamps if I read it correctly? Assuming made in Michigan tubes/frames are used.

Looks that way, sec. 7(b) mentions sound suppressors are included. Sec. 4(d) says machineguns are still verboten but it's a start. Would be nice to see it move forward without being gutted.

If only they would add the deletion of the damn pistol registry....

The machine gun part needs to go away it is just politically correct angering, surrendering a "compromise" even before the bill is debated.  Also the way it reads would also prohibit shotguns and anything with multiple barrels that can fire more than one at a time because it simply says "two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger."  Wouldn't that also apply to shotgun shells and certain double barrels?

My thoughts- It will get stalled if not killed in the Committee on Judiciary due to the lengthy research that will need to be done of Federal law and Supreme Court rulings regarding States rights and intrastate commerce. Depends on how much the Committee on Judiciary puts weight into it. Nice start though.

I like the sound of that!!

The federal law isn't going anywhere soon. Even if this bill gets traction and I doubt that it will, you still have to be in compliance with the federal ordinances. It will matter not one bit to any federal law enforcement officer any bill each state passes.

Federal law always trumps state law, both for good and for evil.

That is my understanding to but why doesn’t the Feds bust legal grow operations in the state?

Those are among the laws that this administration chooses not to enforce.



 

If it's made solely and entirely in the state of Michigan from the state of Michigan, and it never leaves the state once complete, federal law has no jurisdiction for it, since the power for gun control comes from interstate commerce.  Good luck holding that up in a court after you've been hauled in by a border area search or some zealous CBP guy out with his wife and kids that decides it's time to flex.

IIRC, one of the western states did this once. Montana I think, and the Fed's got real pissy about it. Don't remember how it all ended.
Even if this bill passes, our RINO governor won't sign it, as Bloomberg's people will be all over him.

The DOJ will prosecute you if you possess these items unregistered.  An FFL dealer that sells or transfers you any Class 3/NFA firearm without compliance with federal law will be criminally prosecuted and his FFL revoked.  These nullification bills are bravado and have no teeth.  They are election season fluff.  Do not be fooled.  Until the bill adds state criminal prosecutions stating that "Federal officials or agents who interfere or impair with the possession of x or y manufactured and possessed pursuant to this Act, shall be guilty of a state felony."  At least the state can make a stand with this sort of law, provided the Governor is willing to call out the state police to block the federal marshals from forcing their way into the state jail where the federal official is being held and serving a writ of habeus corpus issued by a federal judge demanding his release, or holding the Governor in contempt of Federal court, seizing him and confining him to a federal facility until he says to the troopers, go home.  While we are all dreaming, the so called nullification bill is a dream too.

Not in NJ.

Court says 2nd Amendment doesn’t trump NJ’s strict gun laws  Read More: Court says 2nd Amendment doesn't trump NJ's strict gun laws | http://nj1015.com/court-says-2nd-amendment-doesnt-trump-njs-strict-gun-laws/?trackback=tsmclip

The wife later dismissed her complaint and the husband completed a pretrial intervention program, which spared him a criminal conviction on the weapons charges. But the judge moved forward with stripping him of gun ownership rights, finding that he assaulted his wife and committed a crime.

The decision acknowledged that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to possess a handgun for the purpose of self-defense. But according to the courts, the Constitution does not trump “states’ enforcement of their ‘longstanding
prohibitions’ on firearm possession,” and “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”