Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/2/2006 1:09:58 PM EDT
From the discussion at subguns.com, it appears that the Attourney General has issued an opinion that all MGs are legal for residents to own, and not just C&R guns.

Opinion # 7183 has not yet been uploaded on the state website, but when it is, you can read it here. Type in 7183 in the opinon number box.

I have not yet read the text of the opinion, only relaying what I have read elsewhere. I'm interested because I may be moving to MI in the near future for a year or so. I was looking into getting a deposit box in Indianna somewhere to keep my toys in, but this would be much better.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 2:00:51 PM EDT
Man! I hope this is true!

I could see a few MG's in My future if it is!!!!!


I Hope!, I Hope!, I Hope!

Tall Shadow
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 2:36:22 PM EDT
I just don't think it's going to happen.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 3:44:41 PM EDT
From what i heard it is true, I'll have to sell my harley now and buy a real Krinkov and a few suppressors and SBR a few of my guns , now i'm broke. lol I posted this topic over on gunboards yesterday. heres the link McM
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 3:56:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 3:57:02 PM EDT by RodMI]
You better not be $%$$ me or I will chase you down! Ya hoooo
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 4:29:51 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 4:45:25 PM EDT
Oh man ,oh man now i just need to get a couple more jobs and sell my a few organs..
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 5:06:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 5:06:56 PM EDT by bump0x]

Originally Posted By Lumpy223:
Looks like the cat is out of the bag.

As I understand it, this has not been forewarded to ATF yet nor has it been uploaded to the State web site. Sounds like just a few more chips need to fall into place.

I have read the 10 page opinion folks, this looks rock solid. Pray that there is not a knee jerk reaction now to pass newer restrictive laws.

Anybody want to loan me about 12K for a registered reciever?



I read it as well, and agree that its everything we could hope for. It should be on the AG's website soon.

You need to sell that AR18 Lumpy :)
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 5:21:03 PM EDT
PRAISE THE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 5:22:22 PM EDT
Ooohhh I can't wait!!! I see at least a M-11 in my near future and some other goodies!!

BTW, if anyone has a copy of the 10 page opinion could you email it to gundecals (at) sbcglobal.net ? I'd appreciate it.

Kris
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 5:28:28 PM EDT
wait untill the new media gets wind of this
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 5:42:07 PM EDT
Should I insert a shamelss plug for my transfer services here?
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:03:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordie48001:
Should I insert a shamelss plug for my transfer services here?



I know you'll be my new crack dealer Dave :)
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:16:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordie48001:
Should I insert a shamelss plug for my transfer services here?



All hail the Candy Man!
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:19:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 6:20:15 PM EDT by gordie48001]

Originally Posted By roach46:
wait untill the new media gets wind of this



This is the one thing I am concerned about.
We shall see in time I suppose.

But, as they say....can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs....
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:21:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 6:25:13 PM EDT by rpd_fire]
Locate Opinion No.: 7183
1963 - to date


Opinion Not Found

Opinion No. Date Headnote
[ /opinion/findsngl.asp ]



Originally Posted By gordie48001:
Should I insert a shamelss plug for my transfer services here?


Can you be my new silenced crack dealer?
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:23:13 PM EDT
Get your paperwork started NOW. The ATF has been known to move slower than plate techtonics with approvals lately, you want to get your transfers approved and take posession before Granhole gets the opportunity to railroad a piece of counter legislation through.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:23:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rpd_fire:
Locate Opinion No.: 7183
1963 - to date


Opinion Not Found

Opinion No. Date Headnote
[ /opinion/findsngl.asp ]



It hasn't been uploaded yet. Be patient.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:27:15 PM EDT
Congrats!!!!!
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:29:02 PM EDT
For those that have read the letter, Does it apply to all nfa and aow firearms?
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:29:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/2/2006 6:33:57 PM EDT by gordie48001]

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
Get your paperwork started NOW. The ATF has been known to move slower than plate techtonics with approvals lately, you want to get your transfers approved and take posession before Granhole gets the opportunity to railroad a piece of counter legislation through.



Actually this is not the case.
This fall they completed their move to West Virgina and have a whole new crew. Transfers are moving at record speeds lately. My form 3's which were running 60 -90 days have been getting done in 3, 4 and 5 weeks. Pretty impressive change. Everyone I have spoken with can speek English too...that is a nice plus. Oh, and they are actually personable, they don't act like you are bothering them. All in all a great change.

The counter legislation I am concerned about.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:32:09 PM EDT
Seems to just address the issue of the word "License" and how that is interpreted. The provisions prohibiting SBS and SBR may still stand and that was not mentioned in the opinion as I read it.

I believe AOW's were OK before.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:47:12 PM EDT
TAG!
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:52:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy223:

Anybody want to loan me about 12K for a registered reciever?



Only need $9500, Sendra and Olys have been running that for the last few months.
SP1 conversions I have seen as low as $8900.

Of course.....the demand will now drive the price up....our little situation and the Shrike actually shipping a few units.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:53:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordie48001:
Seems to just address the issue of the word "License" and how that is interpreted. The provisions prohibiting SBS and SBR may still stand and that was not mentioned in the opinion as I read it.

I believe AOW's were OK before.



Yeah, what prevented regular transferable MGs up until this opinion, was a previous opinion referencing MCL 750.224. This opinion basically says that a signed form 4 from the BATFE satisfies the licensing requirement in MI Law.

However, only MGs and suppressors are defined/discussed in MCL 750.224 so SBRs and SBS are still not legal (although you can put a short barrel on a legal MG) because they are expressly forbidden in other pats of the MCL. AOWs were previously legal and remain so.
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 6:54:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordie48001:
Seems to just address the issue of the word "License" and how that is interpreted. The provisions prohibiting SBS and SBR may still stand and that was not mentioned in the opinion as I read it.

I believe AOW's were OK before.



I just hope you misread that. I really really want my sbr Krink!!!!!! I don't want to build it as a dumb pistol!!!

As for AOW's, they've been OK all along. I beleive DD's are too.

BTW, I need a silencer just like you have for my piece-o-crap P22. That way no one at the pit will know when it misfired.

Kris
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 7:01:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shop_rat45:
I just hope you misread that. I really really want my sbr Krink!!!!!! I don't want to build it as a dumb pistol!!!
Kris



Nope, we didn't misread it...your screwed with SBS's and SBR's....unless you buy a REAL KRINK, then it can be short, fast, LOUD....and BRIGHT!

Link Posted: 1/2/2006 7:01:56 PM EDT
I wonder if there's someone we should write? Should we lay low and wait?

Link Posted: 1/2/2006 7:59:39 PM EDT

This better NOT be a joke.


As I sit here in utter disbelief.

Pinch me please!
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 8:30:51 PM EDT



The counter legislation I am concerned about.




+1


I'll believe it when I see it
Link Posted: 1/2/2006 9:15:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordie48001:

Originally Posted By shop_rat45:
I just hope you misread that. I really really want my sbr Krink!!!!!! I don't want to build it as a dumb pistol!!!
Kris



Nope, we didn't misread it...your screwed with SBS's and SBR's....unless you buy a REAL KRINK, then it can be short, fast, LOUD....and BRIGHT!

www.armamentsales.com/Pics/albums/userpics/10001/normal_KrinkFlashEnhancer.jpg



I think I've shot that Krink over in Wyoming Michigan. Do you know if that is the same one that Sherridan Arms brought with them? I' assuming a transferrable Krink isn't too cheap though.

Kris
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 2:02:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 2:05:45 AM EDT by Sixgun357]
SO how do I go about mounting a Short barrel or can on my Bushmaster.
I want one of these
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 4:11:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sixgun357:
SO how do I go about mounting a Short barrel or can on my Bushmaster.
I want one of these
www.doublediamondsupply.com/photos/c15sbr9mm1.jpg




That ain't going to happen. Short Barreled Rifles will still be a no no.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 4:58:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy223:
Looks like the cat is out of the bag.

As I understand it, this has not been forewarded to ATF yet nor has it been uploaded to the State web site. Sounds like just a few more chips need to fall into place.

I have read the 10 page opinion folks, this looks rock solid. Pray that there is not a knee jerk reaction now to pass newer restrictive laws.

Anybody want to loan me about 12K for a registered reciever?




Lumpy, is this an opinion or did the legislature pass something? Some of the things that I have read so far say opinion but others say something was passed. Is this a new AG opinion?
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 5:02:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By firedog51d:

Originally Posted By Lumpy223:
Looks like the cat is out of the bag.

As I understand it, this has not been forewarded to ATF yet nor has it been uploaded to the State web site. Sounds like just a few more chips need to fall into place.

I have read the 10 page opinion folks, this looks rock solid. Pray that there is not a knee jerk reaction now to pass newer restrictive laws.

Anybody want to loan me about 12K for a registered reciever?




Lumpy, is this an opinion or did the legislature pass something? Some of the things that I have read so far say opinion but others say something was passed. Is this a new AG opinion?



New AG opinion.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 5:06:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SkyCatII:

New AG opinion.



SHWEEETTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 6:40:02 AM EDT
Time for a can!
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 7:00:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 7:06:55 AM EDT by GarrettJ]
I'm still waiting to see the official letter. But I'm thinking in the mean time:

When does this go into effect? I understand that it may take some time before ATF has updated their files and start approving paperwork. That means there would be a wait on Form 1 & 4 registrations. The same would be true of people that own NFA stuff in other states. They have to wait for ATF to approve a 5320 before they can bring stuff in. However, silencers do not require any approval prior to crossing state lines.

If the "opinion" has force of law right now, someone could bring in a silencer from out of state today. I just don't feel like being the unlucky test subject.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 7:05:10 AM EDT
We need this to happen in Californistan.

According to the letter of the law, MGs ARE legal for the general public to own. But they've made it impossible through red tape.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 7:23:43 AM EDT
Any updates on this? I would be really curious to know if this in in fact the gospel truth or a less than nice internet rumor sent out by the ATF in the hopes of ensnaring some unlucky Michiganders.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 7:47:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 7:57:21 AM EDT by metroplex]
What does this mean for me, as a civilian non-01 FFL holder / non-dealer?

Are we allowed to make our firearms FA after the Form 1 is approved?
What about silencers?
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 8:20:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By metroplex:
What does this mean for me, as a civilian non-01 FFL holder / non-dealer?

Are we allowed to make our firearms FA after the Form 1 is approved?
What about silencers?



No individual can make a FA firearm. That ability was taken away May 19, 1986 in the FOPA act which is federal legislation. You can file all the form 1s you want, but they will not be approved if you are asking to build a MG for individual use.

Silencers should now be allowed in MI and you are still allowed to form 1 a suppressor and make it yourself.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 8:28:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 8:29:22 AM EDT by metroplex]

Originally Posted By bump0x:

Originally Posted By metroplex:
What does this mean for me, as a civilian non-01 FFL holder / non-dealer?

Are we allowed to make our firearms FA after the Form 1 is approved?
What about silencers?



No individual can make a FA firearm. That ability was taken away May 19, 1986 in the FOPA act which is federal legislation. You can file all the form 1s you want, but they will not be approved if you are asking to build a MG for individual use.

Silencers should now be allowed in MI and you are still allowed to form 1 a suppressor and make it yourself.



So how do we get a FA firearm now (or should be able to get)? Does it have to be made before 1986 or does it have to come from the factory FA (made after 1986)? Seeing the lack of full-auto 3rd Gen Glocks in many of the states leads me to believe the former (made pre-86)?

So for suppressors, I'd have to fill out the Form 1, pay $200 tax per silencer after it is approved? Then I could buy, say, a Gemtech for the AR-15 from an online dealer and show them the paperwork?
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 9:15:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 9:17:25 AM EDT by bump0x]

Originally Posted By metroplex:

Originally Posted By bump0x:

Originally Posted By metroplex:
What does this mean for me, as a civilian non-01 FFL holder / non-dealer?

Are we allowed to make our firearms FA after the Form 1 is approved?
What about silencers?



No individual can make a FA firearm. That ability was taken away May 19, 1986 in the FOPA act which is federal legislation. You can file all the form 1s you want, but they will not be approved if you are asking to build a MG for individual use.

Silencers should now be allowed in MI and you are still allowed to form 1 a suppressor and make it yourself.



So how do we get a FA firearm now (or should be able to get)? Does it have to be made before 1986 or does it have to come from the factory FA (made after 1986)? Seeing the lack of full-auto 3rd Gen Glocks in many of the states leads me to believe the former (made pre-86)?

So for suppressors, I'd have to fill out the Form 1, pay $200 tax per silencer after it is approved? Then I could buy, say, a Gemtech for the AR-15 from an online dealer and show them the paperwork?



Getting off-topic, but I'm sure there are lots of people with questions like yours.

The only MGs available to individuals in the US are those weapons registerd in the National Firearms Transfer Record (NFTR) prior to May 19, 1986. These are called 'transferrable' machine guns. Anything made after this date is considered a 'post may sample' and are for FFLs who have paid their SOT, law enforcement agencies, military, etc. You cannot order new MGs from the factory, unless that manufacturer still has inventory that was registered before the 1986 cutoff.

For suppressors. If you want to BUILD your own, then you would send in a form 1 with a $200 check, wait for approval, and ONLY then could you start to build it. If you wanted to buy a gemtech for instance, you would pay your dealer the price of the can. You or your dealer fill out the paperwork (form 4), you get CLEO signoff, attach a check for $200 and send it off to the BATF. The approved for comes back to your dealer and then you can go pick up the suppressor.

There are many other scenarios that can take place depending on if you are buying a MG or suppressor from an individual out of state, a dealer out of state, etc. but I'm not gonna get into them now.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 9:49:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2006 10:21:54 AM EDT by SkyCatII]
Forgive my ignorance, but do you have to be 21+yrs old to (legally) purchase/register a suppressor, or do you just have to be 18 or older? I'm hoping for the latter, assuming that this AG decision really does exist. I might have to make room in my college budget for a gemtech if so.

ETA: Got my answer in the General Discussion thread.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 10:09:14 AM EDT
OK
I am confused here...

I have always been told we can't own an AOW here in Michigan.

From what I am hearing we can?

If so, what do I have to do to get a 1) Pen gun 2) a shotgun with a very short barrel?

Also, if I get a shotgun with a very short barrel can I carry this in my trunk or inside my car? I do have a CPL if that matters.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 11:00:05 AM EDT
Well, there's something up on the website now, but when I click the link I get a 404 object not found error message.

The headnote states:

A person in Michigan may only possess a machine gun if it was lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986, and is properly registered under federal law. A person in Michigan may only transfer possession of a machine gun if authorized to do so by the federal Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 11:27:40 AM EDT
Would it be possible to have this thread made a "stickie"?
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 11:55:07 AM EDT
Yeah, Its been posted on the AG's website.

here is the .pdf version with signature, etc. AG Opinion


The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)



STATE OF MICHIGAN

MIKE COX, ATTORNEY GENERAL

FIREARMS:

MICHIGAN PENAL CODE:



Possession and transfer of a machine gun

A person in Michigan may only possess a machine gun if it was lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986, and is properly registered under federal law. A person in Michigan may only transfer possession of a machine gun if authorized to do so by the federal Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Opinion No. 7183

December 27, 2005

Honorable Leon Drolet
State Representative
The Capitol
Lansing, Michigan 48909

You have asked whether a person[1] in Michigan may transfer possession of a federally registered machine gun.

Possession of a machine gun by a person in Michigan is controlled by section 224 of the Michigan Penal Code, MCL 750.224:

(1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or possess any of the following:

(a) A machine gun or firearm that shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than 1 shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

* * *

(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 by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or the secretary's delegate[[2]] to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun, or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in subsection (1). [Emphasis added.]

Of greatest relevance to your question is the exception stated in subsection 3(c) above. Michigan law, therefore, prohibits the possession of a machine gun by a person unless that person has been "licensed" by the United States Government to manufacture, sell, or possess the weapon.

To determine how one becomes "licensed" by the federal government, the governing provision is subsection (o) of section 922 of the federal Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), 18 USC 922(o). That subsection states in relevant part:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to--

* * *

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect [effective May 19, 1986]. [18 USC 922(o)(1) and (2)(B).]

After enactment of the FOPA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives promulgated implementing regulations permitting private ownership of a machine gun under specified circumstances. One of those regulations, 27 CFR 479.105, provides:

(a) General. As provided by 26 U.S.C. 5812 and 26 U.S.C. 5822, an application to make or transfer a firearm shall be denied if the making, transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the maker or transferee in violation of
law. . . .

(b) Machine guns lawfully possessed prior to May 19, 1986. A machine gun possessed in compliance with the provisions of this part prior to May 19, 1986, may continue to be lawfully possessed by the person to whom the machine gun is registered and may, upon compliance with the provisions of this part, be lawfully transferred to and possessed by the transferee.

Thus, under federal law, a person may possess a machine gun if that person lawfully possessed it before May 19, 1986, or if the person is one to whom a person in lawful possession lawfully transferred possession after that date. Another regulation, 27 CFR 479.84, generally prohibits the transfer of a firearm "unless an application, Form 4 (Firearms), Application for Transfer and Registration of Firearm, in duplicate, executed under the penalties of perjury to transfer the firearm and register it to the transferee has been filed with and approved by the Director [of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives]." The regulation further requires that the application provide a complete description of the firearm and detailed identification of both parties to the transfer. Under the current Form 4 (copy attached), the transferee is required to certify whether the transferee has been convicted of or is facing criminal felony charges, whether the transferee is a fugitive, illegal alien, addicted to controlled substances, subject to a domestic relations restraining order, has received a military dishonorable discharge, has been adjudicated mentally defective, or has been convicted of domestic violence. An affirmative answer to any of these questions results in a denial of the application. Another regulation, 27 CFR 479.85, requires that the application include the transferee's photograph and set of fingerprints. The application must also be certified by the appropriate state or local law enforcement official as to whether the official has any information indicating that the machine gun will be used for other than a lawful purpose or that possession of the gun by the transferee would be in violation of state or federal law. 27 CFR 479.85. The Form 4 application is then reviewed by the Director and, if approved, is returned to the transferor who may then transfer the weapon. The transferee is required to retain the approved Form 4 application as proof that the firearm is properly registered. 27 CFR 479.86.

In light of this federal regulatory background, it must next be determined whether this federal approval process culminates in the issuance of a "license" for purposes of the exception to the prohibition on the possession of a machine gun found in MCL 750.224.

The foremost rule in construing a statute is to discern and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. Nastal v Henderson & Associates Investigations, Inc, 471 Mich 712, 720; 691 NW2d 1 (2005). The first step in ascertaining that intent is to review the language of the statute. The plain meaning of the critical word itself as well as its placement and purpose in the statutory scheme must be considered. Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236-237; 596 NW2d 119 (1999).

The concept of licensure was discussed in Bostrom v Jennings, 326 Mich 146, 167; 40 NW2d 97 (1949) (Boyles, J. concurring):

[A] license means "to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do." 33 Am Jur, "Licenses," § 2, p 325.

"The object of a license is to confer a right that does not exist without a license." Chilvers v. People, 11 Mich 43, 49.

"The popular understanding of the word license undoubtedly is, a permission to do something which without the license would not be allowable. . . ." Youngblood v. Sexton, 32 Mich 406, 419 (20 Am Rep 654).

The general understanding of a license is stated in Webster's New International Dictionary (2d ed), p 1425, as follows:

"License, license, n * * * Authority or liberty given to do or forebear any act; permission to do something.

Although the application and registration scheme provided for under the federal laws and regulations discussed above do not result in the issuance of a document labeled "license,"[3] the Form 4 application and resulting approval process bears all the hallmarks of licensure. The permission granted by the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to transfer and possess a machine gun is the official authority required in order to avoid the federal proscription. Absent such approval, a person possessing a machine gun would be subject to serious sanctions, including prosecution and incarceration under both federal and state law. See 18 USC 924 and MCL 750.224(2).

Moreover, there is no indication in the plain text of MCL 750.224 that the Legislature intended the word "license" to have a meaning other than its ordinary meaning as described by the Court in Bostrom. Its purpose in the statutory scheme appears to be to assure that only those persons receiving the proper authorization from the appropriate federal officials are allowed to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun. The statute does not focus on the particular title or name given to that authorizing instrument. Accordingly, the authorization provided under the federal regulatory scheme embodied in 18 USC 922(o) and related regulations constitutes a "license" within the meaning of MCL 750.224.[4]

It is my opinion, therefore, that a person in Michigan may only possess a machine gun if it was lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986, and is properly registered under federal law. A person in Michigan may only transfer possession of a machine gun if authorized to do so by the federal Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

MIKE COX
Attorney General

[1] Because your request only concerns private individuals, this opinion does not address any other classes of persons, such as law enforcement officers and military personnel.

[2] The historical responsibility of the Secretary of Treasury of the United States to regulate firearms through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was transferred by Congress to the United States Attorney General by Public Law No 107-296, Title XI, Subtitle B, § 1112(f)(4), (6), 116 Stat 2276 (2002).

[3] Compare 18 USC 923 (providing for the licensure of manufacturers, importers, dealers, and collectors).

[4] OAG, 1977-1978, No 5210, p 189 (August 10, 1977), reached the opposite conclusion on this question. However, at the time that opinion was issued, MCL 750.224 allowed a person to possess a machine gun if the person was "duly licensed to manufacture, sell, or possess any machine gun." As that opinion noted, when MCL 750.224 was amended in 1959, the Legislature considered a companion bill to license the possession of machine guns. The opinion concluded that the failure to enact the bill was evidence that no law existed to allow for the possession of a machine gun. The opinion further noted that then existing federal law only provided for the registration and not the licensing of machine guns. As discussed above, Congress subsequently enacted legislation authorizing the Director of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to formally approve the possession of certain machine guns. Moreover, soon after the issuance of OAG No 5210, the Legislature amended MCL 750.224 by 1978 PA 564 to specifically recognize an exception for a license issued by the United States Government. The Attorney General was also quick to recognize that with the amendment, the machine gun prohibition in MCL 750.224 did not apply to a person duly licensed by the Secretary of Treasury of the United States or the Secretary's delegate to possess a machine gun. Letter opinion of the Attorney General to Phillip Price, Chief, National Firearms Act Branch, United States Department of Treasury, dated April 25, 1979. Accordingly, OAG No 5210 is superseded by this opinion.


http://opinion/datafiles/2000s/op10259.htm
State of Michigan, Department of Attorney General
Last Updated 01/03/2006 15:47:52

Link Posted: 1/3/2006 12:04:02 PM EDT
I knew I like Mike Cox.
Link Posted: 1/3/2006 12:21:41 PM EDT
That is excellent. However, the opinion letter does not address the issue of silencers. Without going back and looking at the text of the existing law, I assume that they were outlawed in a similar manner as MGs were (must be "licensed", but no state licensing mechanism). If that is the case, this opinion should set precedence to cover silencers as well. But until I see something official, I would be somewhat leery of simply sauntering into the state with them.

Anyone know anything more concrete?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top