They have a slew of other weapons related bills that are being discussed. At first glance, they appear to be making firearms records exempt from the Freedom of Information Act; however, I skimmed them quick on my phone and may have misinterpreted. I'll review them more thoroughly when I get a chance at home.

I do know a bill along those lines is working its way through the process.  You may have read it right.

I thought so as well; however, the additional bills being discussed tomorrow are a package that was introduced Thurs. 13 Feb. 2014. I'm not sure how, or if, they're different than the original bills I was aware of.

I took tomorrow off in the event I want to go to Lansing tomorrow. If they are inviting public comment, Is there anything I need to know to get my $.02 in? i.e. who do I talk to etc.

The committee meetings are always open to public comment. If your like to do so, make sure you arrive early. Before the meeting begins, the committee clerk will have little cards to hand out. On the card, you fill in your name, the bill number, your stance, and whether or not you want to speak. Turn the card in, and the clerk will sort them by bill number. The committee will start the meeting and for each bill, they will go through the cards. They start with those who want to speak and call them one by one. After all public comment is done, they read the names and stances of anyone who didn't wish to speak.

If you are not in the first few speakers, what you had planned to say may have already been said. If you no longer wish to speak when your name is called, just inform them your points have been made by others. If you do speak, make sure you have rehearsed your speech, or have it written down so you come across well.

I unfortunately will not be able to make it tomorrow. Hopefully others will.

I have a seminar in Lansing tomorrow and Friday. I will be watching this thread.

If I see Rick Snyder at this seminar I will slap him for everyone.

FIFY

Thank you for going. I made the mistake of browsing the SBR forum again.

SBR means new purpose. New purpose means new optics. New rails. I understand why the woman gets so excited for events, its an excuse to accessorize.

Well Guys, things went pretty well. I saw a few familiar faces (Chuck Madurski, Dr. Dremel, Michiman1 and was introduced to a few people I had seen before but had not met.

They kicked off at 9am with the bill to remove pistol purchase records from FOIA requests. I was very surprised to see that the NRA had provided legal counsel to support our local efforts... He did a very credible job making a case for why the law on FOIA requests needs to change and handled the two representatives that were hostile to the idea well. Michigan State Police had a SGT. representing for them, and the Michigan Sheriff's assiciation, both had issue with the law-not on it's face, but because some of the legitimate uses of firearms registration database searches are hard to do while meeting the law's requirement for Probable Cause. Further, there were questions about who else might be barred access to the records because responding officers often rely on 911 dispatchers telling them that a home they are being sent to has weapons or not. Primary resistance from the Judiciary Committee seemed to center around what known instances where FOIA requests had been used in Michigan to violate people's privacy, and why they should write law when it is already MSP's internal policy to not give out that information except where legitimately needed for public safety reasons. they ended their remarks by saying that they were willing to work with the legislature to fix the issues they had.  No idea which way they will vote on that one, but I think it has a chance.

As far as the SBR's and SBS's, that went well. Who knows what the House of Representatives will do when it comes to the floor for a vote, but the bill sailed thru with little resistance from the Democrats on the Committee. The MSP and MACS both said they were Neutral on the law, and had no comment. MCRGO had two gentlemen present that really had their poop-in-group, and Dakota Moore from NRA-ILA gave testimony that clearly demonstrated his familiarity with NFA and state issues. I'd say this is going to pass the House and get signed with a "better than good" chance of making it.


Gotta say that I am a bit taken aback by the NRA being there. I'm normally not shy in saying how little use I have for NRA as a protector of my gun rights, and generally have taken an extremely dim view of their efforts to derail Heller vs. DC. Seeing the effort put in to the fairly small issue of gun records and FOIA requests and then NFA matters-which they typically do not make great effort to champion-is causing me to reconsider my position on the NRA and possibly join. Shocked the shit out of me.

We're winning, guys.

Fogrot to mention that the AG's office sent two people (Alan Kropse and Bob(?) Iannone), both of whom were VERY enthusiastic about passing the bill.

Remember that when Schuette needs help running for Governor-he's every bit the friend to us that Mike Cox was. I remember running into him at one of the AG's fundraisers at Laurel Manor back when we were trying to get a favorable Opinion on Suppressors and came away impressed listening to him talk with Bustoff.

Did the committee vote on any of the bills or did they simply read them and open for testimony?

They were going to vote later, there were too many open issues with the FIOA bill and it didn't make sense to vote on just one. I'm confident on the SBR bill for sure.

They did not vote.  The Chair stated they would consider them a bit longer.  So we are still in the House Judiciary Committee.  We will have to keep a close eye on the schedule. I had the opportiunity to talk to four reps from both parties there and all seemed to think this was going to make it out of committee favorably.  The FOIA bills dominated discussion and SBR's looked like a no brainer after that.  No one spoke agaisnt it and the MSP was neutral.  The AG's office carried lots of water on this one. They deserve our thanks.  NRA and MCRGO also testified and a Michigan FFL/SOT testified about the business side.  We had three members from this Board take off time from work to also appear.  I know others wanted to, but could not make it due to the short notice.  Thanks to all.  It was a good day.

Thanks for the up dates and a BIG THANK YOU to the guys who went today. I couldn't miss work today we had too many people off already. Keep us updated and I will do everything I can to make the next meeting.

Also should we keep up with the emails and calls ?

Yes! While it seems like it was received favorably, they have not yet voted on it in the committee. Until they do, nothing is for certain. Making our voices heard may bring them to a vote sooner and/or convince them to vote yes.

Thanks to all who went and for taking the time to post a well laid out recap.  I'm optimistic that we're going to be killing our credit cards sometime this year.

The NRA while certainly not perfect is definitely better than just leaving things to chance.  They could use some tweaking but they do stand up for our 2nd amendment rights even when its not popular to do so.

Really glad to hear the AG was on our side and to be honest that floored me to read.  Thanks again Dave for keeping those of us who could not go informed.

We currently have an edge in the House with 59 Republicans, 50 Democrats, and 1 Independent (who was Democrat, and is now some "facny" independent democrat for a party he created ). If the Democrats on the committee didn't pose many issues, hopefully the Democrats on the floor won't either.

Is the SBR bill tied to the records bill ? I was wondering if this is why it didnt move forward ?

No, they are not tied together. It sounds like they didn't vote because the package of FOIA records bills was large and they wanted more time to think on everything.

I have confidence that it will pass through the House, but I am not confident about whether Governor Synder will sign it into law.

Emailed my senate and rep. Hope this passes. I always liked short weapons.

Someone get me on the right track here. I was talking to someone I would characterize as an expert on NFA stuff today. According to him, if this SBR law goes our way, then we will no longer need ATF application / tax stamp. He said we could just obtain the SBR  like we do long guns now, with just a 4473. I am confused. Is he off his rocker? Have I been reading everything wrong all this time? WTF
Sorry this is a whacked post. Just set me straight.

He's wrong.

If the barrel on a rifle is under 16'' or a shotgun barrel is under 18'' then the gun in question will fall under NFA rules, and require a ATF Form1 or Form 4 application and the $200.00 tax stamp.

But he can do what ever he wants. Just remember to send some care packages to him in Leavenworth.

I've heard talk that some western states were working on laws that if a NFA item was completely built in their home state it would be exempt as long as it stays in state. I think it was Montana but I never heard any more about it ?


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMontana_Firearms_Freedom_Act&ei=FmgNU93nBKKQyAGN_ICoCA&usg=AFQjCNEqDCIwXA1r1MPMmEW5rBOXw2yavg&sig2=z_bB039nOjrKTT4zAil0nw

I'll be very happy when I can defend my home and family with an SBR 300 Blackout Suppressed AR.

Snake's correct. Under current MI law, it is illegal to manufacture and/or possess an SBR in MI, even though they are legal to own with a tax stamp under federal law.

The new MI law would not change federal law, but would legalize possession in MI. You are still legally required to apply to the ATF on a Form 1 or 4 to own an SBR. Your friend can do whatever he wants, but the ATF won't look upon him kindly when they find out. He'll be in for some sweet loving from Bubba in Leavenworth.

I received an email yesterday that the House Judiciary Committee is holding a meeting at 9AM Thurs. SB 610 and the firearm owner FOIA package are on the agenda again. Hopefully they'll vote on them. Keep up the emails and phone calls.

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.

The HJC will consider a substitute Bill H1 Thursday the 27th.  It divides the SBR/SBS world in to 1) 26 inch and under SBR's that must be registered as pistols and 2) over 26 inch SBR/SBSs that are not registered as pistols BUT will require a copy of the Form 1, 3, 4 paperwork to be carried and produced upon request to a peace officer.  We have discussed this second requirment with the bill's sponsor and are advised that it is warranted lest the bill be challanged as an amendment by incorporation.  If H1 comes out of committee approved as I suspect it will, and it passes the House as I believe it will, then it will go back to the Senate.  Its a rocky road but this is the nature of legislation.

I take it that under section 1 you still need to clear with ATF Form which ever as a SBR/SBS and register with MSP. Section 2 you will also need to clear with ATF but not register with MSP. Not sure what "bill be challenged as an amendment by incorporation" means. Can you clarify please. Is this just typical legislative BS that takes common sense writing (the original SB) and makes it harder to understand?

Its legislative jargon that says we can not amend a statute merely by referencing it in a bill.  Each statute has to be amended specifically and directly, not by indirection.  

As to the ATF, yes all SBR/SBSs must still be approved by ATF prior to making or possessing.  The House version would legalize 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.

Just got this from Rep. Martin Howrylak

"Thank you for contacting me regarding Senate Bill 610, which revises the prohibition against manufacturing, selling, or possessing a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.  This bill has had two hearings in the House Judiciary Committee.  Please know that I support this bill and voted accordingly in committee today.  Discussion and debate in committee and in the entire House of Representatives ensures that the bill language is sufficient and that there are no major negative consequences.  We have been working to make sure that the legislation is worded in the best way possible for all concerned. The bill passed overwhelmingly in the Senate in November with a vote of 36-2, so that is definitely positive for the bill.

The Michigan Penal Code prohibits a person from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or possessing a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. A violation is a felony punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $2,500. There have been 69 felony dispositions for the offense of manufacturing, selling, or possessing short-barreled shotguns or rifles. Of those 69 dispositions, 14 resulted in prison sentences, 28 in jail time, 24 in probation, and three in other sanctions. This bill could reduce the number of individuals charged with the offense if they are in compliance with Federal law.

Under the bill the prohibition would not apply to a firearm that was lawfully made, manufactured, transferred, or possessed under Federal law. A person, excluding a manufacturer, lawfully making, transferring, or possessing a firearm, would have to comply with the handgun licensure law's requirement to obtain a pistol license.

You may follow bills online at www.legislature.mi.gov, check on committee minutes and testimony at https://committee.mihouse.mi.gov/CommitteeList.aspx and watch committee hearings by clicking on the House T.V. link beside the committee list. Thank you again for writing with your concerns and please let me know if you have further questions or comments for me to consider.
Martin Howrylak
State Representative – 41st District (Clawson & Troy)"

Well, it sounds like it's going to be a while before it makes it into law, but it's looking good.

I thought you were always required to carry proof of tax stamp with NFA items. Is the amendment allowing for photocopies or does it explicitly call out the original tax stamp?

There is no Federal law provision mandating that you carry proof of your tax stamp. Many do as it can make an encounter with law enforcement go easier or allow you the use of a private range if they ask to see it first. Most of the time the range officers just want to shoot it and don't ask questions.

It better not say originals. My original stamps don't leave my house.

It says "shall possess a copy of the federal registration . . . "

The substitute was adopted and reported out of committee with bipartisan support.  It now goes to the full house.

Opps UPDATE: It goes to second reading in the House judiciary committee then it goes out to the full house.

Outstanding.

Once again, time to email my reps.

I gota say, I really don't like that the are slipping in, adding these to the pistol registry.  Just last year we were pushing hard to get rid of the registry all together, and now they are looking to expand it.

The pistol registry portion has been in there from the start. No one "slipped in" and added it.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2013-SEBS-0610.pdf

I don't see any reference to it in SB610, as passed by the senate.  I had though the bill was introduced in the house with the same text, but I guess not.

While I don't like registering my guns you can't get more registered than a SBR . By Mi doing pistol registration on SBR's you know what that does

While I agree that the Feds will already have the information, it makes the state registry a bit redundant.  I also think itmy hurt any future attempts to get rid of the registry, as not its not just handguns, but also thise extra evil short barreled killing machines....  

Check it again. From SB610 as passed by the Senate.

"(4) A PERSON, EXCLUDING A MANUFACTURER, LAWFULLY MAKING,
10 TRANSFERRING, OR POSSESSING A FIREARM UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL
11 COMPLY WITH SECTION 2 OR 2A OF 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422 AND 28.422A."

MCL 28.422 is the pistol registration statue.

I stand corrected.

Welcome to the state of One step forward Two steps back. There will be a small victory in there.

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".

I'm a little baffled by the distinction. I'm also trying really hard to think of any SBR's longer than 26" that would fall into that category..

If I have any concern over the 26"+/show papers is that it could be construed by LEO's that NFA shooters they come in contact with have to show papers for ANY NFA weapons on request.

I don't think you are looking at the pistol registration aspect in the right way.... That part allows you to CARRY YOUR LOADED SBR ON YOUR PERSON AND IN YOUR VEHICLE.

MSP is aware that this is the case, and apparently aren't bothered by it because they don't think many people will actually do it.

This is a good thing. Having to mail in an RI-60 after Form 1'ing your SBR is not that big of a deal considering the benefits it brings. It's not like a guy who has an SBR doesn't already have a carry permit..

I don't think you understand how clueless our elected officials are when it comes to firearms, let alone their regulation.

That's what I was hinting to the part in red. I carry my AR pistol now the only difference is stamp and a butt stock.