Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/26/2006 7:20:28 PM EDT
Ok, I know I am just not getting it, or something...

Are sound suppressors legal or not with the new Class 3 ruling, and if they are, what is the process?

Please help me!
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 7:48:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JackBurton:
Ok, I know I am just not getting it, or something...

Are sound suppressors legal or not with the new Class 3 ruling, and if they are, what is the process?

Please help me!



The verbage in the AG's 7183 opinion explicitly states "Machine Guns" some say that it covers all of MCL750.224 (excl subsects) I personally would like some clarification....

Find suppressor, purchase and have shipped to local Class III FFL
They start the PW and send/give to you
You get CLEO sign-off, )(or go the LLC, Trust route)
Send in pw with the $200 check and wait!

If you purchase a suppressor out of state do it with a mfg rather than a pricate individual, as you will have to cover the $200 transfer twice...
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 4:40:21 AM EDT
AGNTSA.

"Of the fifteen states that do not allow civilian ownership, CA, IA, KS, MA, MO, and MI allow Class 3 dealers and Class two manufacturers to possess silencers."

Sorry bud. No silencer for us. : (
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 5:38:14 AM EDT
Understanding Michigan’s Machine Gun - Silencer Statute and Attorney General Opinions

MCL 750.224 Weapons; manufacture, sale, or possession as felony; exceptions; “muffler” or “silencer” defined.
Sec. 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.
(b) A muffler or silencer.
(c) A bomb or bombshell.
(d) A blackjack, slungshot, billy, metallic knuckles, sand club, sand bag, or bludgeon.
(e) A device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance designed to render a person temporarily or permanently
disabled by the ejection, release, or emission of a gas or other substance.
(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.
(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 to manufacture, sell,
or possess a machine gun, or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in subsection (1).
(4) As used in this chapter, “muffler” or “silencer” means 1 or more of the following:
(a) A device for muffling, silencing, or deadening the report of a firearm.
(b) A combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or
silencer.
(c) A part, designed or redesigned, and intended only for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer.

The statute as cited above is understood to mean that it is illegal to manufacture, sell or possess a machine gun or a silencer unless you are a person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States.

Attorney General Opinion 5210 issued August 10, 1977. Possession of an automatic weapon. It is illegal for a person to possess an automatic weapon or a weapon equipped with a silencer.

This opinion was understood to mean that it is illegal for a person to possess a machine gun or silencer unless the person was duly licensed by the secretary of the treasury. The opinion also stated there was no provision under state or federal law for the licensing of such items. Accordingly the opinion interpreted the statute to mean, “It is illegal for a person to possess an automatic weapon or a weapon equipped with a silencer” since the legislature had not provided for the issuance of permits for the acquisition or possession of a machine gun or a weapon equipped with a silencer by a private individual.

Note: Attorney General Opinion 5210 has been superseded and replaced by Attorney General Opinion 7183 on December 27, 2005. This would render the 5210 opinion null and void effectively eliminating the prohibition by opinion of machine guns and silencers or weapons equipped with silencers.

Since the 5210 opinion has been superseded it cannot be used to interpret the statute to prohibit the possession of machine guns or silencers, which is exactly what this opinion did. Absent the 5210 opinion the statute is understood to have its original meaning and intent as it applies to silencers. To apply the original intent of the statute to silencers the statute would be understood to mean:

It is illegal to manufacture, sell or possess a silencer unless you are a person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States.

The statute is clear in its meaning regarding silencers and opinion 7183 applies. Opinion 7183 outlines the process of licensure for the person to meet the exception to the prohibition as stated in subsection 3 (c). And that is an approval of a form 4 issued by the Director of the BATFE. Silencers require the same federal approval process as a machine gun so the same procedures as outlined in the opinion must be applied to silencers.


Attorney General Opinion 7183 issued December 27, 2005. 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.

This opinion is understood to mean that it is illegal for a person to possess a machine gun or silencer unless the person is duly licensed by the secretary of the treasury. This is statutory law, this is what the statute says. The opinion outlines how a person becomes duly licensed by the secretary to possess pre 1986 machine guns and also clarifies that the secretary is now known to be the Director of the BATFE. The Attorney General has outlined the transfer process and attached the federal registration forms as part of the opinion.

The AG further states the Form 4 application and resulting approval process does not result in the issuance of a document labeled “license”, however it bears all the hallmarks of licensure. Finally the federal regulation constitutes a license within the meaning of the statute MCL750.224.

So for all intents and purposes an approved federal form to transfer possession of those items codified into the statute known as machine guns and silencers shall be held to be a license to possess those items as the approved form constitutes a license within the meaning of the exception of the statute and that is;

MCL 750.224 Weapons; manufacture, sale, or possession as felony; exceptions; “muffler” or “silencer” defined.
Sec. 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.
(b) A muffler or silencer.
(c) A bomb or bombshell.
(d) A blackjack, slungshot, billy, metallic knuckles, sand club, sand bag, or bludgeon.
(e) A device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance designed to render a person temporarily or permanently
disabled by the ejection, release, or emission of a gas or other substance.
(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.
(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 to manufacture, sell, or possess a machine gun, or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in subsection (1).
(4) As used in this chapter, “muffler” or “silencer” means 1 or more of the following:
(a) A device for muffling, silencing, or deadening the report of a firearm.
(b) A combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or
silencer.
(c) A part, designed or redesigned, and intended only for use in assembling or fabricating a muffler or silencer.


A person shall not possess any of the following: a machine gun or a silencer. This does not apply to a person licensed by the secretary of the treasury of the United States or the secretary’s delegate to possess a machine gun, device, weapon, cartridge container or contrivance described in subsection 1 as a machine gun or muffler or silencer or…..

Attorney General Mike Cox in his 7183 opinion has reaffirmed the fact that persons in Michigan may lawfully own and possess pre-1986 machine guns as long as the Director of the BATFE has approved the transfer. An approved transfer by the Director will serve as the license to possess the item under the Michigan statute and meets the definition of a license. As such the Michigan person now meets the exception to the prohibition as outlined in the statute in subsection 3 (c), a person licensed by the secretary or in this case the Director of the BATFE.

AG Cox did in fact limit the scope of the application of his interpretation of the statute to Michigan persons in footnote 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”.

AG Cox did not limit the scope of his opinion specifically to pre 1986 machine guns. If he had wanted to narrow his opinion he would have said so and cited a footnote indicating as much. He cited the entire statute and for purposes of clarity he did not include all of the statutory language. He did the same thing when citing the federal statutes in order to maintain clarity. The lack of complete statutory language is not reason to assume that certain left out parts of the statutes do not apply. That would be absurd. If that were the case the statutes in their entirety would be meaningless.

AG Cox did not specifically include or exclude mufflers or silencers as they are indeed an integral part of the statute and exist as a prohibited item to persons unless they are duly licensed. If the AG wanted to he would have limited his opinion to specifically exclude silencers with a footnote indicating such. Much like he did in footnote 1 limiting the application of the opinion to Michigan persons. AG Cox has clearly outlined what is required to meet the exception or exemption of subsection 3 (c) in order to lawfully possess prohibited items as listed in subsection 1, i.e. machine guns and silencers and that is an approved form authorized by the federal Director of the BATFE.

Opinion 7183 must apply to both machine guns and silencers as the 5210-prohibition opinion was replaced by the 7183 opinion. The prohibition opinion addressed machine guns and silencers the new opinion addresses them as well. Both machine guns and silencers co-exist as inseparable exceptions in the same subsection of the statute as cited by AG Cox in his 7183 opinion, “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…”. Exception (b) muffler or silencer follows, as does the rest of the cited statute in its entirety although not specifically entered into the opinion for sake of clarity.

The exceptions provided for in the statute under subsection 1 are inseparable in that one cannot be considered an exception without the other being considered an exception as well. This is codified into the statute by the legislature, this is statutory law this is what the statute says. Both machine guns and silencers co-exist within the same subsection, specifically MCL 750.224 subsection 1 (a) machine gun, and (b) silencer. One cannot be divorced from the other. To separate the two by saying one is legal and the other is not would be an attempt to impose a new prohibition by decree. The controlling issue is not whether the AG opinion specifically mentions silencers. The controlling issue is whether a silencer is transferable where the applicant files a Form 4 with the Director of the BATFE which the AG indisputably has said constitutes a license for purpose of meeting the exception or exemption under 3 (c) of the Michigan statute.

Finally in superseding opinion 5210 with opinion 7183 the prohibition by opinion as it applied to machine guns and silencers has been eliminated. The statutory construction and legislative intent of the statute has been preserved and Michigan persons are entitled to own or possess pre 1986 machine guns and silencers as long as they are duly licensed by the approval of the required federal forms by the federal Director of the BATFE.







<­BR>





Link Posted: 1/27/2006 2:40:04 PM EDT
OK Today I called and asked the ATF Office in Flint and the agent told me that it IS legal for private civilian ownership.

I would like to verify this through the state PD.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 3:44:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DarkWolf:
OK Today I called and asked the ATF Office in Flint and the agent told me that it IS legal for private civilian ownership.

I would like to verify this through the state PD.



If the local ATF office said it IS legal, then they must have received the word, or they understood 7183...

I wouldn't worry about the state PD too much..my only concern was/is the BATF...

RD
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 6:52:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2006 7:10:02 PM EDT by DarkWolf]
I will calling the Grand Rapids office on Monday to verify what Flint told me and update what I find out. I am going to see if I can get something in plain writing what the new ruling means and what we need to do to make the purchase. I will post anything I get from them. I also have an E-mail in to the Detroit Office.
Link Posted: 1/27/2006 9:47:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2006 9:48:10 PM EDT by Furner]

Originally Posted By DarkWolf:
I will calling the Grand Rapids office on Monday to verify what Flint told me and update what I find out. I am going to see if I can get something in plain writing what the new ruling means and what we need to do to make the purchase. I will post anything I get from them. I also have an E-mail in to the Detroit Office.



ask about a yes/no on a CLEO signature for the form 4 would you? I got a purchase permit from grandville today and they looked at me like i was an idiot for even asking if they would sign off on a form 4
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 5:16:40 AM EDT
You guys are lucky to have found an ATF local person who knows anything about this deal. Most local ATF people are clueless and will babble bullshit and try to bullshit their way thru the question with wrong answers. Word to the wise - when in doubt - get it in writing.

As for the CLEO thing. This is for the most part a nationwide problem. Most CLEOS are clueless as well. Most don't know the law or what a CLEO signoff even is. Some anti gun CLEO's just plain and simply refuse to sign. If your CLEO won't sign you move on to a circuit court judge, Prosecuting Attorney or others that have some responsibility of enforcing criminal laws over your jurisdiction for a signature. You should also ask to have each and every refusal to sign in writing. If you exhaust all attempts then you may have to force ATF to approve without a signature by producing evidence that you exhausted all of the possible signators and it may require a law suit to do that.

Perhaps as things develop we can push the MSP to publish new FAQ's describing changes to Michigans MG Silencer law via AG opinion 7183. Myself and my Attorney have discussed this and we plan on addressing it.

If anybody gets anything in writing from anybody I could use an email copy of it. Send to:

Transwarp84@hotmail.com

Also please make a donation ASAP to Mike Cox re-election campaign - if it was not for him we would not even be taking about these things today. In the text boxes on Cox's volunteer page and donation page please thank him for the 7183 opinion, make a secure online credit card donation - easiest or mail him a donation with some comments. Put in the text box NFA Enthusiasts for Mike! Tell him how much your donating. Tell him you'll do more later. etc. etc. Also please cross post to other boards to help Mike out - this will demonstrate we have some financial clout!

links

http://mikecox2006.com/donate.php

http://mikecox2006.com/volunteer.php

Link Posted: 2/11/2006 3:22:07 PM EDT
Ok sorry I could not get back to you guys sooner but work is has been a real pain but any how I have not had get in touch with anyone from the ATF office in GR I will again this week and I can post asap.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 3:28:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DarkWolf:
OK Today I called and asked the ATF Office in Flint and the agent told me that it IS legal for private civilian ownership.


That's great. There are a number of people with paperwork in the system, and I am waiting to get some 5320s back so I can bring my stuff to MI, but so far I have not seen anyone report getting approval back yet.
Top Top