Senate Bill 761: Lower pistol length definition to 26 inches

[Master Control]

Senate Bill 761: Lower pistol length definition to 26 inches
Passed 109 to 0 in the House on May 31, 2012, to change the law defining any firearm less than 30 inches in length as a “pistol,” making this 26 inches. Some rifles with folding stocks are less than 30 inches, and so under Michigan law are technically subject to the same purchase and other restrictions as pistols.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-SEBH-0761.pdf​

 

[stainless1911]

I like the idea of Michigan Pistols. This law would do more to restrict rights, than to expand them.

 

[Yooper]

I like the idea of Michigan Pistols. This law would do more to restrict rights, than to expand them.

It takes a class of firearm that requires government permission to own, transfer, or borrow (thus NOT a right), and gets rid of that requirement, which turns that class of firearms into a right.

 

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

More Stack on BS gun law.

I like the idea of Michigan Pistols. This law would do more to restrict rights, than to expand them.

Ladies & Gentlemen I do believe this is another under the radar attack on our 2A rights. Seem like our buddies in Lansing have an agenda with the sudden batch of bills that are quietly being brought forward before most of us start leaving for summer breaks/vacations & we are on the $hit end of the stick.

 

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

Senate Bill 761: Lower pistol length definition to 26 inches
Passed 109 to 0 in the House on May 31, 2012, to change the law defining any firearm less than 30 inches in length as a “pistol,” making this 26 inches. Some rifles with folding stocks are less than 30 inches, and so under Michigan law are technically subject to the same purchase and other restrictions as pistols.


​

See bold it speaks volumes.

 

[TheQ]

Here we go again. Wasn't there already a thread with over 100 posts debating this? Can someone go dig up the link to alleviate the need to re-churn the issue?

 

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

See bold it speaks volumes.

Again see bold. 109 to 0? And you say we have a pro gun legislature?

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

 

[Michigander]

<<[(2) A PERSON WHO, BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2013, LAWFULLY OWNED A FIREARM GREATER THAN 26 INCHES IN LENGTH AND CARRIED THAT FIREARM AS A PISTOL, MAY CONTINUE TO LAWFULLY OWN, POSSESS, CARRY, OR TRANSPORT THAT FIREARM AS A PISTOL AFTER JANUARY 1, 2013 IF HE OR SHE IS IN POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(A) A COPY OF THE LICENSE OR RECORD ISSUED UNDER SECTION 2 OR 2A FOR THAT FIREARM, IF THE FIREARM WAS REGISTERED AS A PISTOL UNDER SECTIONS 2 OR 2A.
(B) FOR A FIREARM PURCHASED OUT OF STATE, A SALES RECEIPT OR PROOF OF PURCHASE THAT INDICATES THE MAKE, MODEL, AND SERIAL NUMBER OF A FIREARM, AND A PURCHASE DATE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2013.
(C) AN AFFIDAVIT ISSUED BY A STATE OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS OR ANY OTHER STATE STATING THAT THE FIREARM WAS LAWFULLY OWNED AND CARRIED AS A PISTOL BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2013.]>>

A- why the hell should I have to carry a long ago tossed green card or RI060?

B-Why would that be covered under a grandfather clause?

C- Which police agency in another state, never mind this one, would issue such a piece of writing? MIDAP's exist only in Michigan. For a cop in another state to issue such a statement, would mean that that cop would be lying.

I am so sick of cops asking me for my walking papers. Legislating that I'm required to carry more of them really pisses me off. And what's worse is that the reasoning is thoroughly erroneous.

Federal law and state law should match. But we also shouldn't be prohibited from carrying long guns in vehicles without casing or disassembling them.

Am I missing something, or do I need to start calling and bitching?

 

[Yooper]

Again see bold. 109 to 0? And you say we have a pro gun legislature?

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

I would say making it so a class of firearm that currently needs to be registered, and eliminating the need to register them is a pro gun vote, not an anti-gun vote.

 

[DrTodd]

I would say making it so a class of firearm that currently needs to be registered, and eliminating the need to register them is a pro gun vote, not an anti-gun vote.

And I think if this type of legislation is going to be the hallmark of Michigan Republicans' "pro-2A" legislative agenda, I become increasingly sad about the future prospects of being able to truly exercise the 2nd Amendment in this state. Oh, how very sad...

 

[michaelm_ski]

Lowering Gun Size ?

I don't know about the rest BUT lowering the size to declare the gun a pistol seems to actually give us more choices to carry ? I like it because it also gives us a lot more rifles that can be carried with shorter barrels such as our AR platforms . I for one am grateful to the bill as it is a lot easier to purchase a rifle than a handgun at times .

 

[DrTodd]

More crumbs from the master's table...

 

[Bikenut]

If the current legislature honestly and sincerely wanted to actually do something substantive....... adding penalties, penalties for the individuals involved (not just fines that the taxpayer ends up paying), for not being in compliance with MCL 123.1102 would be something they could brag about come election time. And it would be something gun owners/carriers would appreciate come election time.

Imagine... government officials facing arrest/personal fines/jail time for disobeying the law....

What a freaking concept!

And the legislators involved... sponsors, supporters, and those who vote for it... would be able to campaign on their record of making government officials just as accountable to the law as.......... well........ all the voters they hope will vote them back into office.

 

[Glock9mmOldStyle]

If the current legislature honestly and sincerely wanted to actually do something substantive....... adding penalties, penalties for the individuals involved (not just fines that the taxpayer ends up paying), for not being in compliance with MCL 123.1102 would be something they could brag about come election time. And it would be something gun owners/carriers would appreciate come election time.

Imagine... government officials facing arrest/personal fines/jail time for disobeying the law....

What a freaking concept!

And the legislators involved... sponsors, supporters, and those who vote for it... would be able to campaign on their record of making government officials just as accountable to the law as.......... well........ all the voters they hope will vote them back into office.

This is a fantastic idea. That being said do not hold your breath waiting for our current crop of numbskulls to even toy with the idea, even briefly. We need to organize and start getting our people elected on the local and state levels similar to what the tea party folks did. The only way to get rid of the rotten apple we have now in my honest opinion, is to have people on the inside tearing away at it.

Giving up civil rights for security is a certain way to lose both!

 

[DrTodd]

If the current legislature honestly and sincerely wanted to actually do something substantive....... adding penalties, penalties for the individuals involved (not just fines that the taxpayer ends up paying), for not being in compliance with MCL 123.1102 would be something they could brag about come election time. And it would be something gun owners/carriers would appreciate come election time.

Imagine... government officials facing arrest/personal fines/jail time for disobeying the law....

What a freaking concept!

And the legislators involved... sponsors, supporters, and those who vote for it... would be able to campaign on their record of making government officials just as accountable to the law as.......... well........ all the voters they hope will vote them back into office.

I have some nice oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you...

 

[maustin195]

I don't know about the rest BUT lowering the size to declare the gun a pistol seems to actually give us more choices to carry ? I like it because it also gives us a lot more rifles that can be carried with shorter barrels such as our AR platforms . I for one am grateful to the bill as it is a lot easier to purchase a rifle than a handgun at times .

How does lowering the size to 26" increase the choices of guns that can be legally carried? It actually decreases the choices. As far as ease of buying ,just buy a non folding rifle being you wont be able to treat as a pistol anyways if this passes.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut If the current legislature honestly and sincerely wanted to actually do something substantive....... adding penalties, penalties for the individuals involved (not just fines that the taxpayer ends up paying), for not being in compliance with MCL 123.1102 would be something they could brag about come election time. And it would be something gun owners/carriers would appreciate come election time.

Imagine... government officials facing arrest/personal fines/jail time for disobeying the law....

What a freaking concept!

And the legislators involved... sponsors, supporters, and those who vote for it... would be able to campaign on their record of making government officials just as accountable to the law as.......... well........ all the voters they hope will vote them back into office.

I have some nice oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to sell you...

What I'm trying to say is that right now strengthening MCL 123.1102 wouldn't be about guns but would be about holding government officials personally accountable for any official actions... or inactions... that break the law.

At this time in History when government is running wild it would be the shock value of a legislator actually requiring government officials to obey the law like ordinary people must that would garner many votes come election time.

And any legislator that voted against the concept of government officials obeying the law would also see an effect on votes come election time.

The wonderful internet can get the word out on who sponsored, supported, and voted for the rule of law............. and who voted against it too.

And strengthening MCL 123.1102 could easily stop a lot of the Richard measuring going on between minor officials/government departments/judges who think they own a fiefdom.

And that... to my mind... is much more important that farting around measuring barrel lengths.

 

[DrTodd]

I agree. My reference was that it is a "pipe dream"...

Logical thought is something that is lacking in Lansing.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

And I think if this type of legislation is going to be the hallmark of Michigan Republicans' "pro-2A" legislative agenda, I become increasingly sad about the future prospects of being able to truly exercise the 2nd Amendment in this state. Oh, how very sad...

Yup.

I don't know about the rest BUT lowering the size to declare the gun a pistol seems to actually give us more choices to carry ? I like it because it also gives us a lot more rifles that can be carried with shorter barrels such as our AR platforms . I for one am grateful to the bill as it is a lot easier to purchase a rifle than a handgun at times .

SBR's, and SBS's Are illegal in this state. So the barrel length of 16 inches for rifles and 18 inches for shotguns will still stay in effect. This is a terribly stupid way to show "support" for gun owners. 109 to 0 well done, at doing nothing positive at all. It limits the ability to have a "long gun" at the ready if needed.

 

[stainless1911]

Everyone here should send their rep an email explaining that if we as voting gun owners don't get something significant passed into law by the end of the term, ie. permitless transport, PFZs, Preemption, then you will be voting for whoever runs against them.

I have, the response was that she "was very disappointed". Well, I'm very disappointed!!!, And I vote.