Need critiquing of letter to MI AG

[redneckdan]

Here is a rough draft of a letter to the MI AG. I was plinking at a local range over the weekend and the sheriffs deputies showed up....again. I swear this has happend more times than I can count. Seems somebody over 2 miles away can hear it and doesn't like it. I ask all ya'll to look over the content and tweak with respect to terminology, legalise, and factual accuracy. One part i'm not too keen on is the comparison betwix sound suppressors and full-auto. I'd like to make the point that suppressors benefit both shooters and bystanders...but do it in a way as not to attack the recent ruling on full auto. thanks



Dear Attorney General,

I'm writing to you to inquire as to why Michigan Law still does not allow for private citizens to legally own sound suppressors. As you know, the attorney general recently decided that it was legal for private citizens to own fully automatic firearms. It is confusing to me as to why full-auto would be allowed whilst suppressors are still banned. Fully automatic firearms are fun to use but in my thought have limited utility. Sound suppressors have a two fold benefit, they decrease muzzle blast for the user and also decrease the noise to bystanders. I personally have lost track of the number of times the county sheriff has come to the outdoor range I attend because somebody 2 miles away thought I was making to much noise. I am range officer at the Pistol Club at Michigan Tech, I personally have suffered hearing loss from muzzle blast on the range. Our club is run by a very small but dedicated group of students, we average 4-5 hours a week per person on the range. I cannot speak for the others, but I myself have noticed a loss in hearing, even though I us both earplugs and ear muffs at the same time.

In summary, I sincerely ask that you reconsider michigan's ruling on sound suppressors, both for the good of firearms owners and the general public.

thank you

 

[Blackbeard]

Some hard facts might help, rather than personal observations and opinions. Get some data on hearing loss and noise reduction benefits of suppressors. Push the noise pollution idea.

Also, I think your tone is a bit too familiar.

Third, I think the person to write is your state legislator, not the AG. The AG enforces the laws of the state. He doesn't make the laws. If suppressors are banned by state law, he's bound to uphold that law.

 

[MGshaggy]

I'm writing to you to inquire as to why Michigan Law still does not allow for private citizens to legally own sound suppressors

I sincerely ask that you reconsider michigan's ruling on sound suppressors

I don't know MI law, but does the state LAW allow for possession of suppressors? If not, you're writing to the wrong guy; try your state legislators. The AG doesn't make law, they only prosecute and enforce the law the legislature has enacted.

 

[redneckdan]

i'm fuzzy on the legalise. The AG was the one who made the ruling on full-auto, not the legislature. Rumor is that he is considering suppressors next, thats been floating around ever since full-auto was legalized. Suppressors are still banned.

http://www.macombdaily.com/stories/010406/loc_sessa001.shtml


haven't yet found the case law pertaining to suppressors..my google fu is weak

Blackbeard, can you expound on what you mean by familiar tone? you'll ahve to forgive me, I'm an ME not an English major.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

He doesn't make the laws

The AG before him did. All Cox needs to do is clarify his opinion on the matter.

 

[Blackbeard]

It appears that your AG issued a new opinion on the existing Michigan law, superceding the opinion of a previous AG. The new opinion states that with regard to the Michigan statute that makes an exception to the machine gun ban for people licensed by the US Treasury Secretary, the tax stamp paid under 922(0) counts as a license. Thus, any properly registered NFA machinegun may be posessed by Michigan residents.

It may be that your state law does not allow an exception for federal licensees for suppressors.

P.S. It should be noted that the AG's opinion is not law. It is only his stated intention on how the state should enforce the law.

 

[redneckdan]

If thats the case, I wonder why full auto is legal but cans are not. you have to pay the tax on cans just like machine guns.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

It should be noted that the AG's opinion is not law.

I have to disagree, the one before Cox pretty much if he said it was illegal it was law.

 

[everallm]

If it's guidance on noise, you could do worse than say that you feel you are obliged to follow both the Federal as well as MI state OSHA guidelines on noise abatement.

Contact details below.

Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth

Keith Cooley, Director
PH: (517) 373-7230
FAX: (517) 373-2129

Michigan Occupational Safety & Health Administration
7150 Harris Drive
P.O. Box 30643
Lansing, Michigan 48909-8143

Douglas J. Kalinowski, CIH, Director
PH: (517) 322-1817
FAX517) 322-1775

 

[dakuda]

Dear Attorney General,

I'm writing to you to inquire as to why Michigan Law still does not allow for private citizens to legally own sound suppressors. As you know, the attorney general recently decided that it was legal for private citizens to own fully automatic firearms. It is confusing to me as to why full-auto would be allowed whilst suppressors are still banned. Fully automatic firearms are fun to use but in my thought have limited utility. Sound suppressors have a two fold benefit, they decrease muzzle blast for the user and also decrease the noise to bystanders. I personally have lost track of the number of times the county sheriff has come to the outdoor range I attend because somebody 2 miles away thought I was making to much noise. I am range officer at the Pistol Club at Michigan Tech, I personally have suffered hearing loss from muzzle blast on the range. Our club is run by a very small but dedicated group of students, we average 4-5 hours a week per person on the range. I cannot speak for the others, but I myself have noticed a loss in hearing, even though I us both earplugs and ear muffs at the same time.

In summary, I sincerely ask that you reconsider michigan's ruling on sound suppressors, both for the good of firearms owners and the general public.

thank you

Grammar and such fix, from an English teacher. Phrases such as "I personally" accomplish nothing except to make the writer look repetitious. Just some constructive corrections to help make the letter make more sense and be more presentable. It is not perfect, but it is an improvement to my eyes.

Dear <insert actual name of AG here Mr./Ms./Mrs. FirstName LastName>:

I'm writing to you to inquire as to why Michigan Law still does not allow for private citizens to legally own sound suppressors? As you know, the Attorney General's Office recently decided that it was legal for private citizens to own fully automatic firearms.

It is puzzling to me why fully automatic firearms are allowed while suppressors are still banned. Fully automatic firearms are fun to use but in my thoughts have limited utility.

Sound suppressors have a two fold benefit: they decrease muzzle blast for the user and also decrease the noise to bystanders. I have lost track of the number of times the <insert name of county> County Sheriff has come to the outdoor range I attend to address noise complaints from as far away as 2 miles.

As a range officer at the Pistol Club at Michigan Technological University, I have suffered hearing loss from muzzle blasts on the range. Our club is run by a very small, but dedicated, group of students. We average 4-5 hours of range time a week, per person, on the range. I cannot speak for the others but I have noticed a loss in hearing, even though I use both earplugs and ear muffs at the same time. Sound suppressors would decrease the risk for such a loss.

In summary, I sincerely ask that you reconsider Michigan's ruling on sound suppressors, both for the good of firearms owners and the general public.

Thank You

 

[redneckdan]

dakuda, thats the kind of help I was fishing for, thank you. I can handle the technical end but it doesn;t do any good if I sound like a hillbilly on a meth trip.

 

[lookn4varmints]

PM sent to redneckdan

 

[kevindsingleton]

Dakuda did well, but missed a few:

Dear <insert actual name of AG here Mr./Ms./Mrs. FirstName LastName>:

I'm writing to you to inquire as to why Michigan Law still does not allow for private citizens to legally own sound suppressors. (Not really a question, is it?) As you know, the Office of the Attorney General recently decided that it is legal for private citizens to own fully automatic firearms. (It still is legal, isn't it?)

It is puzzling to me why fully automatic firearms are allowed while suppressors are still banned. Fully automatic firearms are fun to use but, in my thoughts, have limited utility. (I'm not sure anyone agrees that full auto firearms have limited utility. I mean, the US Army might take considerable exception to that statement, eh? I'd leave that sentence out, or shove some statistics in to show how you arrived at that conclusion.)

Sound suppressors have a two-fold benefit: they decrease muzzle blast for the user and also decrease the noise to bystanders. (Isn't the user actually just a bystander, with his finger on the trigger? And, isn't the noise just muzzle blast, from a little further away? That's really a one-fold benefit, but it's the best part of the argument.)

I have lost track of the number of times the <insert name of county> County Sheriff has come to the outdoor range I attend to address noise complaints from as far away as 2 miles. (The sheriff came from as far away as two miles, or the noise complaint came from as far away as two miles? This sentence doesn't say what you think it says. And, if you've "lost track", it could be as few as once, or as many as millions, but nobody knows, for sure, so ...who cares? You need to "find track" before trying to argue how invasive/obtrusive/annoying/expensive it is.)

As a range officer at the Pistol Club at Michigan Technological University, I have suffered hearing loss from muzzle blasts on the range. (And, I've filed a worker's comp claim that the state will be paying, which could have been avoided if I'd had access to legal sound suppressors? Until you have actionable damages, what's his motivation? Can you prove that the hearing loss didn't occur when you were bass player for a death metal band in high school? You need "proof".) Our club is run by a very small, but dedicated, group of students. (So, this ruling will positively affect only a tiny minority of the population?) We average 4-5 hours of range time a week, per person, on the range. (It almost goes without saying that "range time" is spent "on the range". Almost.) I cannot speak for the others, but I have noticed a loss in hearing, even though I use both earplugs and ear muffs at the same time. (Didn't you say that, already?) Sound suppressors would decrease the risk for such a loss. (Seems pretty weak. One guy might have saved some portion of his hearing, had the AG only given in and let him have a suppressor.)

In summary, I sincerely ask that you reconsider Michigan's ruling on sound suppressors, both for the good of firearms owners and the general public.

Thank You

I'm not trying to be an *sshole, but I don't think I'd send this letter, just yet. You're probably not going to be pleased with the result.

 

[fspitzdorf]

Where is your range at? Formal or informal? I pretty much know every haunt in that area. I put a lot of lead down range at the sportsman's club in Chassel during my tenure at Tech. Was a nice facility with a lot of good folk. Put a lot of arrows and lead down range in the basement of the SDC too FWIW.

Lot of finicky folk have moved to the area in the past couple of decades. Sure isn't what it once was.

 

[Blackbeard]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Actually, I went and read the Michigan statute referred to by Mr. Cox. It reads (emphasis added):

750.224 Weapons; manufacture, sale, or possession as felony; violation as felony; penalty; 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 or foam 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 exception given in (3)(c) applies to people licensed by the Treasury Secretary. It is not specific to machine guns. I would argue that if the "license" granted under 922(o) satisfies the exception in (3)(c), then it applies to all items in subsection 1.

So, I would change your letter to ask for clarification on the AG's opinion. Does the 922(o) license satisfy the exception under (3)(c) for all weapons and devices in subsection 1? Don't assume that suppressors are "still banned".

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[mbt2001]

Turn on copier. Undo belt, expose behind. Sit on copier and proceed to make 1,000 copies of your bum. Send one every day until you run out to the AG.

Caption should read: "suppress this!"

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Blackbeard, can you link me to where you obtained that?

 

[Sheldon J]

You may get brushed off

Official questions to the AG must be made through your Representative, you will get a reply of a kind. However in order to make it an official decision you must submit your query through the chain of command so to speak.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

(d) A blackjack, slungshot, billy, metallic knuckles, sand club, sand bag, or bludgeon.

They have banned SAND BAGS!! Have they seriously lost their minds? Or is this some secret weapon I am unaware of aside from what you use to either a) rest your rifle on or b) put outside your house so it is not flooded?

 

[Tyris]

Well, I violated the metal knuckle thing when I lived in michigan.
I carried them everywhere when I went to college there.

F them and their anti-self-defense laws.

-T