Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/20/2005 5:45:00 AM EDT
Could one of you fine Michiganders explain what "The People of the state of Michigan enact" in house bills 4092 and 4861 means?

As a resident of Michigan for over 30 years I don't remember enacting a restriction on such items. Also who do I need to contact to get justification on the ban of mufflers, silencers..etc? I read all over that they are banned, but there is no explanation as to WHY they are banned.

I'm sure it's a lost cause, and it's an issue that has been beated to death, but I'd just like to hear their explanation as to why!

Thanks!
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 6:25:08 PM EDT
The relevant statute is the Michigan Penal Code, 1931 PA 328, Ch XXXVII, Sec. 14; MCLA 750.224; MSA 28.421, which provides:

'Any person who shall manufacture, sell, offer for sale or possess any machine gun or firearm which shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than 1 shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger, or any muffler, silencer or device for deadening or muffling the sound of a discharged firearm, . . . shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years or by a fine of not more than $2,500.00.

'The provisions of this section shall not apply . . . to any person duly licensed to manufacture, sell, or possess any machine gun . . . or contrivance above mentioned.' [Emphasis added]

Thus, Michigan law does not permit a person to possess an automatic weapon or a weapon equipped with a silencer unless the person in possession is duly licensed.

There is, however, no provision under Michigan law for the licensing of such devices.
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 7:15:00 PM EDT
Yeah...I saw that earier, I'd still like to what the justification they have for banning them...I'm going to do my homework..this is BS!!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:33:15 AM EDT
tag for results
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:21:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Archangel6:
Yeah...I saw that earier, I'd still like to what the justification they have for banning them...I'm going to do my homework..this is BS!!



My guess is because we let them and we live in a commie liberal state.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:23:28 AM EDT
I seem to remember reading something crazy like this...I think that "related" legislation was passed regarding SBRs or Machine guns. The issue was never voted on per se but since it was on the docket and no one opposed it, it was assumed the legislature wanted it therefore it was enacted. Can't remember the story exactly...


If I can locate I'll post it.

Link Posted: 12/21/2005 4:43:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rocketman223:The issue was never voted on per se but since it was on the docket and no one opposed it, it was assumed the legislature wanted it therefore it was enacted. Can't remember the story exactly...


If I can locate I'll post it.




That it's probably the case, and the sponsors were probably just sheep making sure it didn't go unnoticed. Not sure if that would be a good starting point for my questioning...
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 10:47:06 AM EDT
Well if you intend to go forward, please confirm my story further. I don't want to get blamed for mis information. But I do remember reading something about the situation as I've posted...
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:12:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:32:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy223:
I bet that if there was a push to legalize suppressors you would see the DNR kicking and screaming to Holy Hell about it. They would be convinced that otherwise legal owners would immediately be transformed into poachers who quietly and illegally shoot up the states deer. Can't mess with the DNRs cash crop like that.



Your probably right, but I'd just really like to know WHY!?
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 12:41:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Archangel6:

Originally Posted By Lumpy223:
I bet that if there was a push to legalize suppressors you would see the DNR kicking and screaming to Holy Hell about it. They would be convinced that otherwise legal owners would immediately be transformed into poachers who quietly and illegally shoot up the states deer. Can't mess with the DNRs cash crop like that.



Your probably right, but I'd just really like to know WHY!?




You can thank the "purple gang" for the ban on full autos and silencers. The law that prohibits them was enacted in 1929. 5 years before the Miller ruling. Seems that a lot of people in Detroit got all scared and up in arms because the purple gang was gunning people down. So the law makers made one more offense to charge the purple gang members with.

These are OLD laws and have not been recinded. Which they should be, but I doubt you'll ever see it. Even with a Republican Governor and full control of the legislature, they still wouldn't strike down this law. Nor would the State Surpreme Court.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 1:59:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy223:
I bet that if there was a push to legalize suppressors you would see the DNR kicking and screaming to Holy Hell about it. They would be convinced that otherwise legal owners would immediately be transformed into poachers who quietly and illegally shoot up the states deer. Can't mess with the DNRs cash crop like that.



I don't know. According to the DNR officer that we get the dumpsters from for our pit cleanups, they get a lot of thier funding from firearm sales. They said a lot of the taxes that are imposed on the manufacture goes to them for funding. That is why the DNR officer there actually SUPPORTS the pit. I would think that some of that transfer tax money would go into thier funds. Damn I'd love to own an SBR or ,even better, a full auto MP5.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 5:13:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shop_rat45:I would think that some of that transfer tax money would go into thier funds.


I'll bet if there were a state tax added to the ownership of said items such as the Federal tax stamp it would be more interesting for them to rethink them...
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 5:25:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Archangel6:

Originally Posted By shop_rat45:I would think that some of that transfer tax money would go into thier funds.


I'll bet if there were a state tax added to the ownership of said items such as the Federal tax stamp it would be more interesting for them to rethink them...



You know, Granholm's all into additional taxes, err I mean "fees" for doing stuff in the State of Michigan. Just look at what she has done with trailer registrations to get some extra money in the state coffers. Rather than keep getting $15-25 year, she decided to bump it to $75 for a permanent trailer plate. Someone might want to mention a state tax stamp to her and point out the potential windfall the state could come into if they were to allow it. I'd probably pay an extra $100 for a state tax stamp to go along with the $200 federal one I would need if I could get one in the first place.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 5:34:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kevins_garage:You know, Granholm's all into additional taxes, err I mean "fees" for doing stuff in the State of Michigan. Just look at what she has done with trailer registrations to get some extra money in the state coffers. Rather than keep getting $15-25 year, she decided to bump it to $75 for a permanent trailer plate. Someone might want to mention a state tax stamp to her and point out the potential windfall the state could come into if they were to allow it. I'd probably pay an extra $100 for a state tax stamp to go along with the $200 federal one I would need if I could get one in the first place.



I sent an email to her office this morning citing my disapproval for the bills, and requesting justification for WHY things like suppressors are banned ...who knows if I'll even get a response. I'm trying to gather information on drafting a bill, and getting sponsorship for said bill so it can be presented. I'd definately pay the extra$$ for these items. Wiping out the entire law might not get attention, but if it were to be broken down into smaller portions something like this may have a chance..

Who knows!
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:17:16 PM EDT
House bill 4092 only proposes to amend the law to add a prohibition on "A SHARP-EDGED MULTIBLADED DEVICE WITH BLADES CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED INTO PLACE FOR USE AS A WEAPON" The machine gun or suppressor ban was in the law already and this bill does not change it. Rep Smith, its sponsor, just wants to prevent citizens from carrying a "multibladed device" whatever that is. I think that means the blades in my blender would be illegal. Maybe a cusinart is like a machine gun? More moronic legislation.

House bill 4861 adds "self-defense spray or foam device" to the list of bad things. It actually adds a prohibition on foam to the prexisting ban on 2% spray. This is the pepper spray stuff. In other states you can buy the 10% stuff but in Michigan only 2% concentration is allowed. In other words, you can possess a can of E-Z off oven cleaner or clorox that will rot out the skin and eyes of your attacker, but not 3% pepper spray. Blind guides.

The question I have is why are there no bills from the pro-gun representatives saying that a "license" means a Form 4 transfer under federal law. If the law was interpreted that way, you would not need to be a machine gun dealer to get pre 1986 machine gunsor suppressors.

Amend MCL 750.224 as follows:

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A self-defense spray 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 or authorized 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)..

This little change would open michigan up to private possession of federally registered tax paid suppressors and pre-86 transferable machine guns.
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 6:38:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MichMan1:
House bill 4092 only proposes to amend the law to add a prohibition on "A SHARP-EDGED MULTIBLADED DEVICE WITH BLADES CAPABLE OF BEING LOCKED INTO PLACE FOR USE AS A WEAPON" The machine gun or suppressor ban was in the law already and this bill does not change it. Rep Smith, its sponsor, just wants to prevent citizens from carrying a "multibladed device" whatever that is. I think that means the blades in my blender would be illegal. Maybe a cusinart is like a machine gun? More moronic legislation.

House bill 4861 adds "self-defense spray or foam device" to the list of bad things. It actually adds a prohibition on foam to the prexisting ban on 2% spray. This is the pepper spray stuff. In other states you can buy the 10% stuff but in Michigan only 2% concentration is allowed. In other words, you can possess a can of E-Z off oven cleaner or clorox that will rot out the skin and eyes of your attacker, but not 3% pepper spray. Blind guides.



Yeah...I kind of realized that after I posted it....it's just been burnin my ass as to why almost every state allows suppressors except a few...it boggles the mind!
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 9:27:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy223:
I bet that if there was a push to legalize suppressors you would see the DNR kicking and screaming to Holy Hell about it. They would be convinced that otherwise legal owners would immediately be transformed into poachers who quietly and illegally shoot up the states deer. Can't mess with the DNRs cash crop like that.


I always hear of poaching as the reasoning for banning silencers. However, if this was really such a big problem the DNR had better go out and round up every bow and arrow in the state. After all, they don't go "bang", and they are much easier to acquire. I would think the potential for poaching with a bow would be much, much greater than that of poaching with legal silencers.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 9:45:30 AM EDT
I just found a link where poaching is mentioned

Link
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 9:57:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GarrettJ:

Originally Posted By Lumpy223:
I bet that if there was a push to legalize suppressors you would see the DNR kicking and screaming to Holy Hell about it. They would be convinced that otherwise legal owners would immediately be transformed into poachers who quietly and illegally shoot up the states deer. Can't mess with the DNRs cash crop like that.


I always hear of poaching as the reasoning for banning silencers. However, if this was really such a big problem the DNR had better go out and round up every bow and arrow in the state. After all, they don't go "bang", and they are much easier to acquire. I would think the potential for poaching with a bow would be much, much greater than that of poaching with legal silencers.



might be a little harder to mount a spoting light on a bow.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 10:03:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Raven_Fire:might be a little harder to mount a spoting light on a bow.



Tape a Surefire to it!
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 10:09:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Archangel6:

Originally Posted By Raven_Fire:might be a little harder to mount a spoting light on a bow.



Tape a Surefire to it!



ok, i'm done with this thread.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 9:58:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MichMan1:

House bill 4861 adds "self-defense spray or foam device" to the list of bad things. It actually adds a prohibition on foam to the prexisting ban on 2% spray. This is the pepper spray stuff. In other states you can buy the 10% stuff but in Michigan only 2% concentration is allowed. In other words, you can possess a can of E-Z off oven cleaner or clorox that will rot out the skin and eyes of your attacker, but not 3% pepper spray. Blind guides.




Thats why my wife carries a can of white rain hair spray and a zippo.


Top Top