[Gunnerpalace]

It's got a few sponsors but more is a lot better, Some polls I have seen show a lot of support for it, figure letters and phone calls are a good thing too. :)



Text and Info here\/
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28ah42jg55vj53kdfamt0gv2j1%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2009-HB-5232

[bigalexe]

Lets get a summary of what it is in the thread, and YAY Phil Pavlov he's my local rep.

[WNC Seabee]

In summary, the act would provide that firearms and accessories manufactured in Michigan are not subject to federal law. Firearms would be stamped "Made in Michigan" and would not be subject to registration o other federal regulation so long as the firearm remains within the borders of the state of Michigan.

It essentially clears the way for NFA type devices (except select fire) such as silencers, to be legal and not subject to BATFE. It also means that NICS, etc. may not apply for purchases. Now, MI may enact it's own regulation requiring a NICS check, etc., but that regulation would fall under MI law and not federal law.

Essentially it's a slap at the Fed to say, "The 10th Amendment tells you to stay out of intRAstate commerce...so back off."

[cambeul41]

Will send my rep (a co-sponsor) a thumbs-up.

[Gunnerpalace]

Suppressors/silencer will be legal?

[50caliber123]

I read the entire bill and it looks like it opens the door for legal suppressors. Can't leave the state, but it looks like it can't be registered either. very interesting, from a legal perspective.

[bigalexe]

I am going to email Phil Pavlov tonight and maybe get a response from him (or his office more likely) considering I am in his district to see if I can get a really simple version of the bill mostly listing exactly the extent he wants this to go to.

I am curious if he wants it to extend fully to NFA firearms (full auto, destructive devices, and AOW's), if he wants it to cover Title II stuff such as short barrels and supressors, or if he just wants to eliminate the need for federal registration of currently legal guns.

[WNC Seabee]

I am curious if he wants it to extend fully to NFA firearms (full auto, destructive devices, and AOW's)

Full auto is out. If you read the text of the bill, it prohibits full auto or select fire. Without going back and quoting the bill, it says something along the lines of "not to include firing more than one projectile with a single pull of the trigger". I know "Projectile" is in the language so you could search it easily enough.

[bigalexe]

Alright thank you, now I know my email makes me look like a dork because its already been sent.

[Flyboy73]

Sounds great. Wonder then if we would be able to get Suppressors and SBR/SBS from outside the state. Since we can't now.

Brion

[spartywrx]

I hate to be Debbie Downer here:

Well it would be awesome if it passes, but it won't do much unless there is another challenge to the interstate commerce clause. The Montana bill this is copied off of would probably be the best challenge.

All your state powers belong to the Feds. These two lawsuits effectively killed the 9th and 10th amendments via the Commerce Clause:
Wickard v Filburn (New Deal wheat pricing case)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Gonzo v Raich (marijuana lawsuit in California)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

[Dannix]

It amazes me how infringements like automatic/select fire are in bills like this. I thought the Constitution says "shall not be infringed". :confused:

[Polish_Pounder]

@spartywrx:

I disagree. The main points of those cases are distinctly different.

Wickard v. Filburn: The issue here was that his actions were inextricably tied to interstate commerce, that being wildly fluctuating wheat prices. Supply and demand may ebb and flow, but a silencer made in MI and used in MI does not prevent someone from buying one from a different state, since they can't by law as of right now. Would ammo made in MI prevent someone from buying ammo made elsewhere or contribute to price fluctuation? Maybe, but there is no protection extended to manufacturers of any firearms or ammunition that guarantees them freedom from competition. Therefore, I don't believe this decision is applicable.

Gonzales v. Raich: This has to do with a state deciding to legalize something that the federal government has criminalized. Firearms, ammo, and silencers are not illegal under federal law, and silencers can be purchased in many states.

In conclusion, I respectfully disagree that the Commerce Clause applies to this newly proposed bill, though IANAL.

-Polish