Suppressors as a safety device

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

In my state, MI, suppressors are illegal, regardless of the Federal NFA tax laws. I am wondering if a lawsuit(not by me) would be possible against the state for preventing us access to critical safety devices. It is laughably easy to prove that a firearm fired inside the home or outside for defense purposes is permanently damaging to one's hearing. It is just as easy to prove that a suppressor helps mitigate this damage. Could a state law against suppressors be found somehow unjust due to its inherent increase in risk forced upon citizens?

 

[Quiet]

I believe there are some countries in Europe that mandate the use of noise suppressors due to their noise pollution laws.

Some US SWAT teams require noise suppressors on all their long guns, due to hearing damage/loss.

 

[spartywrx]

You'll find with careful study of Michigan's suppressor law that they are not illegal (only non-C&R SBRs and SBSs are). They are covered under the same statute that covers machine guns, section 224 of the Michigan Penal Code, MCL 750.224. Awhile ago AG Mike Cox issued an opinion (Opinion No. 7183) that said under the statute, a tax stamp from the ATF qualified as a "license" to own NFA items under Michigan law. Volia, machine guns are legal if ATF approval is granted.

Now you would think that this would apply to all the other items listed under machine guns in the statute. There is a whole list of things that needs a license to posses that opinion 7183 seems to grant/recognize. It doesn't. In Cox's opinion, he edited the wording in the opinion so that it only included machine guns. A logical person would read the opinion, and assume that he was talking about the whole statute, not just the part about machine guns. The ATF disagrees with logic (once again!). Their official opinion is that since Cox did not specifically spell out that silencers were covered in the opinion, they are not permissible by state law. The ATF will not green light applications for items that would be illegal under state law. Under the twisted logic of the ATF, silencers are not legal in Michigan, and thus no Michigan Form 4's for silencers are valid.

Silencers are legal in Michigan with a tax stamp from the ATF.

Problem is, the ATF will not issue a tax stamp to a Michigan resident until Cox or his successor writes an opinion exactly the same as 7183, but replacing "machine gun" with "silencer."

Where we are today: There has been much effort from people on arf.com and migunowners.com (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13504) to try to get Cox to issue an opinion on this. He caught a lot of flack for the machine gun opinion. He is running for governor to replace Jenny-o, and methinks that the Freep and Detroit News would love to print opinions saying Mike Cox is arming assassins and gangbangers with silencers and machine guns.

The good news is that if elected governor, he is fairly pro-2a. But I think we will not see an opinion out of him on this issue before the election. So if you want a silencer, pay attention in 2010 to who is running for governor and almost more importantly, who is running for AG

If you're looking for a quicker way to clear this up you could easily fill out a form for the silencer, send it in to get it rejected, and then sue the ATF. I'd come to court and cheer you on

 

[TheFederalistWeasel]

Why suppressors are part of the NFA is beyond stupid.

Its a flippin muffler for your gun nothing more nothing less...

 

[spartywrx]

For clarity here is the law

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.

--------------------------------
Lets read the law.

(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).

This means, in combo with opinion 7183, that licensed means you got your tax stamp. Notice how it says machine guns, or a device, weapon, cartridge, container, or contrivance described in subsection (1).

So lets have a look at the stuff described in section 1 that you need a license for:
(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. (How does one apply for a license to own a sand bag )

(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.

So using logic, the "license" that is granted by ATF for a machine gun is the same license that is granted for any item in section one, including silencers. Michiganders have been able to and do own machine guns in accordance with this law and AG opinion. They (ATF) are intentionally being obtuse in not granting tax stamps for silencers, claiming that somehow the license to own a machine gun is different than one for silencers in Michigan.

If I won the lotto tomorrow, I would gladly take a portion of my winnings to sue their butts into line. But such a endeavor would be extremely costly.

Gives a real meaning to the acronym BATFU.

 

[SMMAssociates]

spartywrx:

A "sand bag" probably applies to a thing called a "sap" in some quarters. A somewhat heavy strip of leather (with internal sand) used to add force to a blow while being quite easy to carry. I had one here someplace, but....

On topic, the silencer thing probably is a leftover from the days when the movies glorified gangsters. "If we can't hear 'em, we can't shoot back".... Same sort of logic that likes to ban flash suppressors....

Hm.... Does "1 E" outlaw "pepper spray"? Sure looks like it to (IANAL) me....

Regards,

 

[General Geoff]

I feel that this is not just a Michigan (or any other single-state) problem. This is a national problem. Silencers should be deregulated. Even if they are not stricken from the NFA entirely, the tax transfer on them should be, at the very least, reduced to $5, the same as AOWs. It would also be excellent if they had special rules for registering silencers that bypasses the dumb CLEO sign-off and fingerprinting requirement.

This would preserve many state-specific laws which depend on the federal registration scheme to keep silencers legal to own, and would also make silencers that much more prevalent and easy to obtain.

 

[ChaoSS]

Hm.... Does "1 E" outlaw "pepper spray"? Sure looks like it to (IANAL) me....

Nope:

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:

(a) A self-defense spray or foam device as defined in section 224d.

 

[Yellowfin]

Suppressors were included in the NFA for two reasons. The one most discussed is that due to the Depression people were shooting deer in the off season to feed their families, which angered FDR because he wanted to be the solution to their problems and only by his way which was price controls, rationing, government work programs, etc. The second and far less discussed is that it fit the broader goal of the NFA which was to partially disarm the public to make them less formidable in the event of a revolt against the federal government if conditions of the Depression worsened.

 

[spartywrx]

spartywrx:

A "sand bag" probably applies to a thing called a "sap" in some quarters. A somewhat heavy strip of leather (with internal sand) used to add force to a blow while being quite easy to carry. I had one here someplace, but....

On topic, the silencer thing probably is a leftover from the days when the movies glorified gangsters. "If we can't hear 'em, we can't shoot back".... Same sort of logic that likes to ban flash suppressors....

Hm.... Does "1 E" outlaw "pepper spray"? Sure looks like it to (IANAL) me....

As for the sand bag thing, I figured that it applied to those little do-hickeys that mobsters always use to beat up a shop owner in gangster movies as you described. I just pointed it out to show how badly worded the law is and fear inspired it is. It doesn't help that once upon a time we had The Purple Gang, Al Capone and friends, and other mobsters running all over Detroit and other parts of Michigan. I can only imagine that this law's passing had something to do with them.


Although if you had a brain dead DA and a willing judge and jury, maybe you could get a conviction for an actual sandbag. Not likely, but dumber things have been done in the name of justice.

 

[damien]

The liberals like to say that federal regulation trumps state laws, so they allege OSHA violations to trump state law. They tried that recently with one of the guns-at-work-in-the-car laws and were partially successful.

Here the antis are at work:

http://www.hrlegalnews.com/osha-wont-halt-guns-at-work-law/

Notice that the judge at the trial court bought it. The appeals court overturned it because "The appeals court ruled that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has never claimed that allowing firearms on company property would violate the OSH Act. Therefore, there is no conflict between the state and federal law." Even the appeals court seems to agree in principle that state laws can be overturned if they conflict with federal regulations. But the appeals court decides in this case not to overturn state law because no such conflict actually existed, in this case they think the trial court was wrong on the facts, not the law. It's only a violation if OSHA says it is a violation as it is their lawful responsibility to set violations. A trial court doesn't get to add violations on its whim.

Of course, OSHA does regulate workplace noise. So Michigan (and many other states) may violate OSHA regulations and there may be a remedy in the federal courts - at least to allowing silencers at work .

Q.E.D.

 

[mljdeckard]

I had the privilige to shoot an M110 and MP-5 the othe rday, both suppressed. As I was thinking, "I can get USED to THIS", they shot the Barrett next to me while I was standing in the baffles of the muzzle brake. Good? Sure. Final solution? Not really.