Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 4/12/2008 11:24:40 AM EST
It seems like he's been mulling over this decision for what like 3, or 4 years now?, is he ever going to act? At first I thought he was waiting untill after the 2006 elections, but that was 2 years ago, whats the hold up?

How does one go about getting other opinions to?, like getting rid of the ridiculous foldind stock decision.
Link Posted: 4/12/2008 11:11:18 PM EST
Anybody?
Link Posted: 4/13/2008 5:29:31 AM EST
I got a response a few months ago from my urging of Senator Sanborn. Basically said Cox's office is working on it. Same thing weve been hearing.
Link Posted: 4/13/2008 6:04:07 AM EST
Per myself, Chuck and Kerry attending the AG's Everybody's Irish party a few weeks ago.

I expect the silencer opinion is on the back burner again. That opinion has been sliced, diced and analyzed who knows how many times. It comes up before the opinion review board and is summarily pushed back again. It's a political football and the issue is probably dead in the water.

Mike Cox will probably run for Governor if there's anything left to govern by 2010! There is no huge majority of gun guys pushing for silencers - so politically there is no popular issue and no positive position to be leveraged as opposed to the negatives that could be exploited by the other side. I don't believe Mike would do anything to hurt the cause!

We talked with Mike - but we did not bring up the subject as he knows just by seeing us whats on our mind and he didn't bring the issue up either.

Having said that we did bring the issue up to key core members of the AG's team and there is no new good news. We do attempt to convey a position without being overbearing or assertive and that will take you a long way.

For instance one of the ladies who is a central figure in all this started off a conversation after first meeting me by laughing and announcing that I was her bane!!!! And thats because both myself, and Kerry have made so many inquiries on my behalf as I am Kerry's "client". She further commented later on that I'm a really nice guy and she was glad to have finally met me. We then chatted with her and her husband who is a gun guy - we had great conversation. So essentially we networked with people whom next time will be even easier to talk with. We are getting to know who is who!

We attempted to convert one of Mikes attorneys who seemed to be relatively neutral on regular guns but was less than receptive when we talked about NFA stuff like mg's, silencers, sbr and sbs. But we worked on him. I think this guy said his wife was generally anti but she was not with him. I believe he also has a statist LE attitude so we didn't ride him real hard. He did agree criminals would not make application with LE and ATF and he was more worried about theft than anything. We'll work on him more next time.

Other than that it was a great party with an excellent band of Irish dancers, great food and Irish drink. We networked with a good number of people and look forward to propelling Mike to the next level as Governor of the state of Michigan!

Link Posted: 4/13/2008 9:36:31 AM EST
That's all fine and great that he doesn't want to piss people off so he can get elected...but does he realise he's pissing us off in the process?
Link Posted: 4/13/2008 10:51:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By blackhawk2000:
That's all fine and great that he doesn't want to piss people off so he can get elected...but does he realise he's pissing us off in the process?



There is a big differance between "Us" and the masses. Chances are 9 out of every 10 folks you ask have NO idea about the up in the air opinion clairfication.
Link Posted: 4/13/2008 11:38:21 AM EST
As far as Cox's office has seen, there are only 4-5 of us that ever showed up at a fundraiser. If we had 100 guys show up, that might have helped. I think it is a dead duck based on my conversations with some of those that were there last time. I could not make the last fundraiser but have been to some in the past and it was alwys the same 4-5 guys from the "gun lobby". Mike Cox knows us by face and knows BustOff by name. If we had the same turnout every time with 50-100 guys, I think it would have turned out differently.
Link Posted: 4/13/2008 12:16:42 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/13/2008 12:39:31 PM EST
Well ATF will continue to deny silencers until told otherwise. They don't care and have no authority over the AG to demand an opinion. Since MC does not want to scare away the anti gun crowd from voting him in office, and since as far as his office has seen, there are only a handful of people that feel it is important enough to show up and voice their position, it is not looked at as worth the political risk.
Link Posted: 4/13/2008 1:55:56 PM EST
mcl 14.32 Opinions for state officials; failure of prosecutors to file annual reports.

Sec. 32.

"It shall be the duty of the attorney general, when required, to give his opinion upon all questions of law submitted to him by the legislature, or by either branch thereof, or by the governor, auditor general, treasurer or any other state officer, and also to notify the county treasurer of the proper county, of the neglect or refusal of any prosecuting attorney to make the annual report to the attorney general required of him by law"
It seems to me that Michigan law requires Mr.Cox to issues a opinion ,Once a request has been received from a state legislator.The fact that this or any other opinion MIGHT be bad for his future political aspirations, is no reason to to ignore the law and seems to be the act of a coward
Link Posted: 4/13/2008 2:16:40 PM EST
The problem is how do you enforce this? By asking a Representative that probably does not want you to have silencers anyway?
Link Posted: 4/13/2008 4:49:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/13/2008 4:54:19 PM EST by BustOff]
Or else what? There are no teeth in the law. The AG will provide an opinion and if he doesn't then what?

Bottom line is nobody wants to do anything about these issues because they're not popular issues. Here we have legislators trying to eliminate the quote unquote safety inspection for pistols instead of clarifying a problem in state law that prevents us from exercising ALL of our federal gun rights.

Well WTF.

Where is the NFA reform or harmonization of the state laws with the federal NFA act?

Why are Michigan citizens treated as second class citizens when all the states around us can have their federal NFA gun rights and those are SBR, SBS, AOW, MG, DD and SILENCERS! WTF!

Well - its because the pro gun community has not yelled loud enough - we are too busy busting up the safety inspection issue.

The NRA is not necessarily NFA nor is the MCRGO or anybody else except a very few of us.

WE got what we could get with the clarification of the MG issue in the form of OAG 7183. Thats probably all we'll get. The WE is ME and a few other guys.

I'll tell you guys what.

You put up and or round up enough support in the form of volunteer work and campaign contributions and perhaps I'll run for State Representative and if elected I'll introduce legislation which would make it perfectly clear you will be able to exercise all of your federal gun rights - SBR, SBS, MG, AOW, DD and SILENCERS.

I'd need to see overwhelming support from the pro gun community and pledges of volunteer work and campaign contributions in order to make such a commitment!

The seat I would be running for is an open seat held by a term limited Republican who plans on running his son. The district - St. Clair Shores and Harrison Township.

home.comcast.net/~sessa7106/MCDailyFrtPgMG.pdf
Link Posted: 4/13/2008 5:37:40 PM EST
I didn't realise he was in a popularity contest. Fuck him, if he's going to act like every other damn politition.


I'll support you, and help you as much as I can if you run. You are actually fairly close to me.
Link Posted: 4/13/2008 6:48:53 PM EST
maybe the best way to get Mr..Cox to issue a opinion would be through the state lawmakers that requested the opinion in the first place. I can't believe that a senator or representative would be to happy about having the ag's office ignore there requests for legal opinions. can any one remember the names of the representative that asked for this opinion? I think that there might be more than one .
Link Posted: 4/14/2008 4:16:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/14/2008 5:41:58 AM EST by BustOff]
They won't do anything that would hurt the cause. If an opinion cannot be issued as a boilerplate rock solid interpretation of the law that would hold up in a court of law then they won't issue.

As far as we can figure out there is probably a division within the opinion review board where the board is either split over the legality or the majority is holding firm that silencers are illegal. This is more than likely why an opinion has not been issued - there is no agreement one way or the other.

I have been told this is the toughest opinion they have been dealing with. They say they have put untold hours of research and sweat equity into it. They say there is a snag in how the law was written.

Mike would not have us running around buying up a bunch of silencers based on his opinion if that opinion would not stand up in court if some John Q Law decided to bust and charge one of us. If a silencer opinion was issued and it was debatable as to the correct and proper interpretation of the law and it was struck down in court and found that silencers were illegal according to the law then a remedy would have to be found where they could either grandfather those who had them prohibiting further acquisition or turn them all in as contraband. That might be an issue.

Hey - I got over $500 bucks wrapped up in a Viper 45 silencer sitting in my dealers safe of which I can't take delivery so I'm vested in the issue. Fact is I can't make them do something they obviously can't decide to do.

State Senator Wayne Kuipers requested the last opinion before that State Rep. Rick Jones. Before that former State Rep. Leon Drolet.

Follow up with Senator Wayne Kuipers senwkuipers@senate.michigan.gov

home.comcast.net/~sessa7106/AGSilencerRequestKuipers.pdf

home.comcast.net/~sessa7106/AGConfirmSilencerReqJones.pdf
Link Posted: 4/14/2008 2:47:28 PM EST
What I wonder about is IF he does get the governorship, who will replace him and will we have to start at step one?

Dave
Link Posted: 4/14/2008 2:55:09 PM EST
I hear Bill Schuette may run for AG. Start all over again? The current mg opinion is solid - no need to start over on that. Silencers? Any way you look at it we need to fix the states faulty attempts to regulate or prohibit federally regulated NFA items. SBR, SBS, MG, Silencer, AOW and DD are all legal for American citizens to own. Michigan law prohibits us from exercising those rights. This needs to be corrected.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Schuette
Link Posted: 4/16/2008 4:15:23 PM EST
You guys want silencers?

Start writing your representatives, call them, bother them in the street, whatever you need to do to get their attention.

I wrote mine, had them bug Cox's office about it. I still keep writing them and asking for updates.

You all sit here and whine and piss 'n moan about it, but do nothing to help get it done. Frankly, it's you type of people who piss me off. You want everything, but are not willing to work for it. Have your cake and you can eat it too.

Link Posted: 4/17/2008 6:23:32 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/17/2008 8:06:47 AM EST
Yup - same here I wrote follow up emails to all 3 - Jones, Huizenga and Cox all copied on the same email so all 3 know each of them were to receive it. I also attached copies of the requests that I linked for you guys.

I'm asking for a complete rework of the states piss poor NFA style regulations. I told them I'd like to see the repeal of the sbr sbs law. MG's and silencers reaffirmed as well as AOW and DD. I told them I'd like to have a CLEO shall sign my form 4 statement, And if its legal under fed law its legal in the state provision. And the legalization of SBR SBS and a clarifying statement striking the idiotic AG Frank kelly under 30" opinion off the books.

Yeah it's asking a bit much but what the hell - lets be free to excercise our federal gun rights just as our fellow citizens in neighboring states can. The fact that they can have them means we should be able to have them as well.

Why can't we?

Get busy and ask Cox, Huizenga and Jones to work on this issue. Tell your own reps you want your federal gun rights affirmed in Michigan law then we wouldn't have to worry about the how long is your barrel stupidity. Its a rifle - no its a pistol - uh oh its a oh my God its a short barrel rifle. Stupid. If its legal under fed law then we want it legal under state law PERIOD.
Link Posted: 4/17/2008 3:33:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Thumbtack:
You guys want silencers?

Start writing your representatives, call them, bother them in the street, whatever you need to do to get their attention.

I wrote mine, had them bug Cox's office about it. I still keep writing them and asking for updates.

You all sit here and whine and piss 'n moan about it, but do nothing to help get it done. Frankly, it's you type of people who piss me off. You want everything, but are not willing to work for it. Have your cake and you can eat it too.



How exactly do you know how many phone calls I have made? Don't just assume people bitching here, aren't doing what they should be doing. I've made my share of phone calls, and I pay for table space at every Mt Clemens show for SAFR to hand out literature. Were YOU there doing your part?
Link Posted: 4/18/2008 2:46:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By blackhawk2000:

Originally Posted By Thumbtack:
You guys want silencers?

Start writing your representatives, call them, bother them in the street, whatever you need to do to get their attention.

I wrote mine, had them bug Cox's office about it. I still keep writing them and asking for updates.

You all sit here and whine and piss 'n moan about it, but do nothing to help get it done. Frankly, it's you type of people who piss me off. You want everything, but are not willing to work for it. Have your cake and you can eat it too.



How exactly do you know how many phone calls I have made? Don't just assume people bitching here, aren't doing what they should be doing. I've made my share of phone calls, and I pay for table space at every Mt Clemens show for SAFR to hand out literature. Were YOU there doing your part?


Did I direct what I said at you? No I don't believe I did. There are a LOT of people who all ask the same question but do nothing to support it at all. Don't get all butt hurt cause you don't like it that someone comes to face about how people are not doing anything towards this and just want to reap the benefits. You are more than welcome to hit the little X in the corner of your screen and not bother reading.
Link Posted: 4/18/2008 3:07:14 PM EST
You should take your own advice.
Link Posted: 4/18/2008 3:46:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By blackhawk2000:
You should take your own advice.

Link Posted: 4/18/2008 11:06:43 PM EST
You know, there is another way. It's just not attractive, because someone has to be really dedicated to try and pull it off.

Have someone buy a silencer through a trust in Indiana, or or someone from out of state who owns a silencer bring it to Michigan and get arrested with it. I'm not a lawyer, but I can see where the text of the state MG law combined with the AG's letter on MG's make a very strong case for the defense.

Basically, the state law says you can't have a MG or silencer without a license. The AG's letter says the ATF registration (Form 1/4/5) satisfies the state's the requirements of a "license" for the purpose of owning a MG. Logic would tell you that this would then meet the requirements for a silencer as well. The ATF registration either is a license or it is not. It can't qualify for one and not for the other when both are addressed in the same section of the law.

A favorable court ruling for the defendant would set the precedent for legal ownership statewide. However, it would be an expensive proposition for the individual to defend himself.

It would really be not fun for him if he were to loose the case.

Like I said, it's not an ideal option, but it is one way to force the issue.
Link Posted: 4/19/2008 2:43:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Thumbtack:

Originally Posted By blackhawk2000:
You should take your own advice.



Settle down guys or I'll turn the car around!!
Link Posted: 4/19/2008 1:31:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By GarrettJ:
You know, there is another way. It's just not attractive, because someone has to be really dedicated to try and pull it off.

Have someone buy a silencer through a trust in Indiana, or or someone from out of state who owns a silencer bring it to Michigan and get arrested with it. I'm not a lawyer, but I can see where the text of the state MG law combined with the AG's letter on MG's make a very strong case for the defense.



You go first.
Link Posted: 4/19/2008 3:08:38 PM EST
Yeah - LOL.

Only problem is subsection 2 of MCL 750.224 being

(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.

We should not be required to break the law to prove the point. Michigan law or the proper legal interpretation of the law or lack thereof is preventing us from exercising our federal right to own a silencer.

Our state gun law reforms have progressed and I helped fight for all of that and I helped fight for machine guns but its time to clean up the states NFA style laws by repealing certain sections, striking old Frank Kelly's barrel / overall length opinion 6210 so we don't need to bring our guns into the PD for registration, and affirm that firearms or devices regulated under the NFA that are legal to own under federal law are legal for Michigan persons to possess under state law.



Top Top