Anyone see this about the Silencer opinion ??

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Anyone see this about the Silencer opinion ??

Posted: 11/8/2008 8:00:11 AM EDT

At the Mason gun show today a dealer had a sign reading Silencers and short barrel rifles Jan 09 2006 2009 . I asked him about that sign and he said a group served papers forcing a opinion on the two before a deadline. He said his sources are confident it will happen.
Anyone else talk to him ?

Posted: 11/8/2008 8:21:26 AM EDT

[#1]

I take it you ment 2009.

That would be cool if someone is taking a legal/court approach and forcing the issue. However, being one to have followed this pretty closely and I feel I have a good grasp on the laws, I dont know how they are going to get an opionion, at least a pro gun one, on SBRs. Its a total different law from the full auto/silencers one. The SBR/SBS law leaves no room for AG opinion, other that to say no. There is no ATF approval exception like in the MG/silencers law. Thats were the MGs got the OK and hopfully the silencers. Because the law said if the ATF approved it, then its ok. The SBR/SBS law leaves no exception. Unless someone is trying to apply the Washington DC handgun law ruling made by the Supreme Court. Time will tell.

Posted: 11/8/2008 8:28:13 AM EDT

[#2]

Too many gun oil fumes that early in the morning . The guy was selling full auto guns and seem to know but maybe not .

Posted: 11/8/2008 9:32:10 AM EDT

[#3]

How much of the Jerky did this fellow consume before 12 pm??

Posted: 11/8/2008 12:25:02 PM EDT

[#4]

Good luck

Posted: 11/17/2008 8:53:11 AM EDT

[#5]

I hope that someone will give us more info on this.ASAP

Posted: 11/17/2008 12:06:41 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

I hope that someone will give us more info on this.ASAP

+1, I know it's not an AR but I would sure love to put a can on my mark23....the wife and neighbors would appreciate it too.

Posted: 11/18/2008 3:34:53 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
At the Mason gun show today a dealer had a sign reading Silencers and short barrel rifles Jan 09 2006 2009 . I asked him about that sign and he said a group served papers forcing a opinion on the two before a deadline. He said his sources are confident it will happen.
Anyone else talk to him ?

Seems like a really bad idea to "force" the AG to give an opinion. I don't care to have people force me to do something, and in the end the outcome is usually negative. I hope it goes through, but I doubt it will. I have been waiting for a couple years now for this to happen. I have written letters to my reps, and have gotten written responses back from them as well as the AG acknowledging that the question had been issued a file number.

That was over a year ago, I still regularly send my emails and written letters out for an update on this issue. Not getting much back. I had kind of figured Mike Cox was going to run for Governor, but I had hoped he would "fix" this screw up on the NFA opinion.

Posted: 11/18/2008 2:14:31 PM EDT

[#8]

I heard about that date and that it was going to happen, but the story I got was nothing to do with the AG at all. I'm sorry to be scant on the details, but I was asked not to share.

Posted: 11/18/2008 4:28:48 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
At the Mason gun show today a dealer had a sign reading Silencers and short barrel rifles Jan 09 2006 2009 . I asked him about that sign and he said a group served papers forcing a opinion on the two before a deadline. He said his sources are confident it will happen.
Anyone else talk to him ?

Seems like a really bad idea to "force" the AG to give an opinion. I don't care to have people force me to do something, and in the end the outcome is usually negative.

I totally agree I hate being forced into anything myself . I was hoping someone else had talked to this gentleman.

Posted: 11/19/2008 5:02:40 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
I heard about that date and that it was going to happen, but the story I got was nothing to do with the AG at all. I'm sorry to be scant on the details, but I was asked not to share.

The "changes" in MI SBR law go into effect on January 7, 2009. However, I just read it and it reads pretty much the same as it does now. The only update is in the law cite code numbers that correspond to the upcomming changes in the MI pistol registration laws, since a C&R SBR has to be registered as a pistol. Doesnt effect the possession part. Hopefully Im missing something. Either another law change or something that happens to a law 48hrs after it goes into effect to void it. This not knowing is killing me as I have a C&R SBR pending and a silencer waiting.

Theres been enough false hope around lately from Obama to the economy. I hope this isnt another thing to add to the list.

Posted: 11/19/2008 1:13:21 PM EDT

[#11]

can you share a source for the new law text?

Posted: 11/20/2008 4:59:44 AM EDT

[#12]

New Wording

Old Wording

Still says nothing about ATF/NFA approval as the MG/Silencer law does. Just says no unless C&R.

Posted: 11/20/2008 12:58:16 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
New Wording

Old Wording

Still says nothing about ATF/NFA approval as the MG/Silencer law does. Just says no unless C&R.

Looks like status quo, but it's not related to what I heard about. We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Fingers crossed.

Posted: 11/20/2008 2:49:28 PM EDT

[#14]

Cox has more authority to fix this now than he would as Governor, right?

Posted: 11/22/2008 8:40:30 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Cox has more authority to fix this now than he would as Governor, right?

Yes, and I can understand why he wouldn't want to touch it with his coming run for governor. This is a liberal leaning state and he has some skeletons in his closet already...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Anyone see this about the Silencer opinion ??

Hometown » Michigan

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us