Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 6/3/2008 4:49:00 PM EST
Legal?

I am filling out my 5320.20's for the next year. I make a regular trip to MI and would like to bring my SBR & Suppressor with me.

I found quite a few sources online that were clear about SBR's and MG's but conflicting information about suppressors.

Thank you!
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 5:05:19 PM EST
We wish
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 5:21:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/3/2008 5:21:36 PM EST by THOLL223]
No suppressors @ this time in MI. There are some here working on it though.
Link Posted: 6/3/2008 5:36:56 PM EST
No SBR's either.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 6:00:54 AM EST
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 9:21:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By AnchorArmament:
A 5320.20 is not required for suppressors.

a. A written request and prior authorization from ATF to transport interstate or in foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun, short-barreled
rifle, or short-barreled shotgun is required under the provisions of Section 922 (a)(4), Title 18, U.S.C., and Section 478.28, Title 27, CFR, a letter of
request, in duplicate, containing all information required on this form, may be submitted in lieu of the form.


Understood. Since the suppressor is used on my SBR and ATF will approve 5320.20's for suppressor I will list them both. Just being overly careful.

It doesn't really matter if I can't bring them to MI for use there.
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 2:09:32 PM EST
So non-MI residents cannot even bring their SBRs to shoot??
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 2:51:08 PM EST

Originally Posted By ShermiesRule:
So non-MI residents cannot even bring their SBRs to shoot??


I would think not as possesion is verbotten. Jeff
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 6:37:10 PM EST
I did some asking around today.

Seems like your AG is a PITA looking to run for the governors office.

Michigan law seems clear to allow SBR's and suppressors but an opinion is needed fromt he AG's office to clarify that position. Until such an opinion is handed down, no SBR's or suppressors in Michigan.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 6:34:53 AM EST
Actully that couldnt be farther from the truth. Our AG reversed a previous AG opinion that allowed us to own full auto. The silencer law is the same as the MG law but he didnt address it in the opinion. He is taking another look at it, but he has seemed to be taking his time on it.

The SBR/SBS law is a totally seperate law in Michigan. It just says no you cant. There is no exceptions other than for law enforcement and dealers. No AG opinion is going to change our SBR/SBS status. Only a change of the law (which is also being looked into, specially with the Kansas chagnes) is the only thing that will change out ability to have SBR/SBS.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 6:43:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By cybersniper:
Actully that couldnt be farther from the truth. Our AG reversed a previous AG opinion that allowed us to own full auto. The silencer law is the same as the MG law but he didnt address it in the opinion. He is taking another look at it, but he has seemed to be taking his time on it.



I hope you are correct. Friends in MI interpreted it differently than you have.

They did agree that the MG law and suppressor law are the same.

If he is 'taking his time' when the letter of the law is rather clear, what would his reasoning be to hold up his opinion?
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 7:34:47 AM EST
Fact of the matter is SBR and SBS is illegal for everybody to possess unless the guns are classified curio and relic.

There is no exception in the law that allows either private citizens, LEO or SOT dealers to possess them unless they're C&R.

We're working on trying to change that - but currently this is the hard reality.

NFA BATFE has been hammering Michigan SOT dealers when they find out they possess SBR or SBS even though the NFA originally transfered them to them. They will be forced to transfer them out of state or surrender them. This has happened. Michigan SOT's attempting to transfer in SBR or SBS are being denied.

As for the AG getting in on this game - unlikely. He may very well side with us on our beliefs because we're not the bad guys and we want to possess all the cool stuff legally but there are other forces out there that will fight us and we're just not big enough or influential enough to command the pro-gun electorate in either support or retaliation of class 3 support.

I can cite the appropriate section of Michigan law but we've done that plenty on this board.

Read these couple of pages for action you can take to support SBR SBS
ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=8&f=39&t=306927&page=1
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 6:01:15 PM EST
Thanks BustOFF.

A good effort being put forward. Best of luck.
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 10:52:01 AM EST
BO I saw the map of the nation as to what states legally allowed private citizens to own cans, Mi is one of only a few that don't.
Would it be a good idea to send a large blown up map showing that 47 states in the union allow everyone to purchase cans to the AG and his staff?
That map of can-friendly states really lends itself to the fact that can's aren't a political hotspot. I think showing a politician like MC that cans are widely accepted all over the country might in and of itself make up his mind.
I believe this is the route we should take in lobby'n the AG. There is simply no geo-political disadvantage to be capitalised on if he signs on cans. They are legal everyplace else in the nation with no criminal detriment to each state's populace. The fact that they are legal everyplace else is the nation might even be a reason for him to sign off, as he can say he's making Michigan firearms laws more streamlined with the nation and federal guidelines.
BO I'll go to Kinko's and have a few very large color coded maps made if you think you can get them into the right hands.
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 12:06:26 PM EST
I have been contemplating putting a simple 8 1/2" x 11" position paper together that might incorporate a corrected version of that map - a couple minor issues with it, and the Kansas and Missouri NFA liberalization if you will that have passed this year the former, Kansas which legalizes mg's and the latter Missouri which allows citizens to obtain silencers - with - I believe a Curio and Relic FFL. Remember most mg guys in Michigan have a C&R FFL license - something similar could be done here.

Things can be done legislatively, Kansas and Missouri are proof of that. We need to always lobby our friends on NFA issues. The AG's office has been pounded by us and there is little more we can do to force the issue. I'm sure Mike would write the opinion if he could make a rock solid boilerplate opinion out of the mess - but I don't think he can.

Like I've said before we need to harmonize Michigan law with the NFA act so we can exercise all our federal gun rights. That will take an act of the legislature and a signature of the governor.

Feel free to submit or recommend documents that support our cause for incorporation into an electronic position paper - an adobe PDF containing the data to layout our position for the legislature.

BustOff@comcast.net
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 12:57:30 PM EST
As a matter of fact I was on the phone today with one of the NFA examiners. I was following up on the whole C&R SBR/SBS thing. I'll post this weekend when I get a few more answers. Still up in the air.

What was interesting was he stated that he and his office wished all States would just follow Federal law on NFA issues. You can imagine having to get 50 States gun laws right ontop of the Federal laws. He couldnt say enough good things about the Kansas law/change. Pretty much said it should be a model for all States. I dont know all the perticulars of that law but I know it consolidated all their NFA stuff into one law that says if the ATF says ok, then it ok.
Top Top