The Sound Of Silencers Can Now Return To Michigan

Michigan's firearms laws are oftentimes weird, and the history of how they became so is often quite convoluted.

One of the interesting twists is that up until Former Attorney General Frank Kelley issued an Attorney General opinion in 1977, silencers, machineguns and short barrel rifles could be owned in Michigan by civillians as long as the proper ATF forms were filled out, taxes paid and approval given.

Mr. Kelley, being a Democrat, didn't like that and his opinion became binding law in Michigan.

Michigan law states that "if the person is licensed or approved to possess, manufacture, or sell such a device by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives," and Mr. Kelley's AG Opinion interpreted that to mean because the ATF form of approval, complete with background check and law enforcement sign-off was an approval of a tax form, it was not a license as such and thus civillians couldn't own them as an ATF "license" as such did not exist.

Former Attorney General Mike Cox, a few short years back in 2005 wrote an opinion that machineguns could again be legal for Michigan civillians to own as the ATF form and process was in fact meeting the status of "license" under Michgian law. Pretty reasonable, after all, if it looks like a license, requires paperwork and fingerprints like a license, and you get a form back permitting ownership, then heck, it is a license regardless of what you otherwise call it.

Now the current Michigan AG, Bill Schuette, has, following the same good reasoning and reading comprehension exhibited by Mr. Cox, ruled that silencers can now again be owned by Michigan civillians. So, many thanks to Attorney General Schuette for a well-reasoned opinion.

Now if someone could just ask him about SBRs we'll be right back to where we were prior to 1977.

Michigan's AG Mike Cox on the Second Amendment

Now that the Supreme Court has finally accepted a Second Amendment case for review, the first since the 1930s, we starting to see people's true stances on the Second Amendment.

Thankfully, Michigan's Attorney General, Mike Cox, unlike his most recent past two predecessors, is a friend of both the Constitution and the Individual rights view.

The Wall Street Journal carried his very well-written column on the subject:

Second Amendment Showdown
The Supreme Court has a historic opportunity to affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms.

BY MIKE COX
Friday, November 23, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case that will affect millions of Americans and could also have an impact on the 2008 elections. That case, Parker v. D.C., should settle the decades-old argument whether the right "to keep and bear arms" of the Constitution's Second Amendment is an individual right--that all Americans enjoy--or only a collective right that states may regulate freely. Legal, historical and even empirical reasons all command a decision that recognizes the Second Amendment guarantee as an individual right.

The amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms was merely an incident of, or subordinate to, a governmental (i.e., a collective) purpose--that of ensuring an efficient or "well regulated" militia--it would be logical to conclude, as does the District of Columbia--that government can outlaw the individual ownership of guns. But this collective interpretation is incorrect.

To analyze what "the right of the people" means, look elsewhere within the Bill of Rights for guidance. The First Amendment speaks of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . ." No one seriously argues that the right to assemble or associate with your fellow citizens is predicated on the number of citizens or the assent of a government. It is an individual right.

The Fourth Amendment says, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . ." The "people" here does not refer to a collectivity, either.

The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Right are individual. The Third and Fifth Amendments protect individual property owners; the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments protect potential individual criminal defendants from unreasonable searches, involuntary incrimination, appearing in court without an attorney, excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishments.

The Ninth Amendment protects individual rights not otherwise enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Here, "the people" are separate from "the states"; thus, the Second Amendment must be about more than simply a "state" militia when it uses the term "the people." .....

Read the whole outstanding article.

Michigan's citizens should be glad for such an outstanding Attorney General, and thankful that we had the votes to reelect him to this post of importance and influence.

Michigan Dems upset about AG's Proposed Gym make a Mountain out of a Treadmill

Much Dem ado about fitness, signifying how petty Michigan politics continues to be.

The Detroit Free Press Reports in Gym pumps up anger of Dems, that the Democrats are in a tizzy as Attorney General Michael Cox has plans to install a fitness center in the Attorney General's Headquarter's office in Lansing.

But it's Democrats who are exercised over Attorney General Mike Cox's plans for a gym, noting that the state faces a $686-million budget shortfall and that Cox plans to let go of 21 full-time secretarial and clerical workers, effective April 20.

"It's just outrageous that he would spend tens of thousands of dollars on facilities like this when he's laying off attorney general employees," said Mark Brewer, chair of the Michigan Democratic Party.

Talk about apples and oranges, a deficit for the entire state in the amount of 686 Million, a deficit that is certainly not AG Cox's fault nor of his making, but rather than of the current Democrat Governor 9and to be fair others as well), and "tens of thousands of dollars" for excercise equipment for which there is a perfectly good reason:

Rusty Hills, a spokesman for Cox, a Republican, made no apologies. He said the gym would be geared, initially at least, to the 37 gun-toting investigators on staff.

"We buy books for attorneys, we have no problem buying weights for cops," Hills said. "We want the cops on our payroll to be in better shape than the criminals they're chasing."

Hills said the investigators' cases include child support, cold-case homicides, Internet predators and consumer and health-care fraud.

"They execute search warrants, transport prisoners, conduct interviews in the field," Hills said. "They are in situations that are dangerous with people who are very dangerous. We don't make a lot of arrests in Bloomfield Hills."

Hills said the Attorney General's Office has yet to determine where the funding will come from in its budget, or how much the gym will end up costing.

Indeed, excercise facilities for use by the entire Ag's office, not just the investigators would make sense: fit employees equals lower occurences of injuries and health problems and thus lower insurance claims, thus reducing health costs for the department and saving the department money. Given that health care is a major expense statewise and always a large compoent of employee expenses, its amazing Cox is not being lauded for progressive thinking by encouraging his employees to get in shape and offering them an oppotunity to do so.

The tens of thousands of dolaars will likely offer a far greater savings in reduced health costs and lost time from work accidents.

In addition, it appears in the comments accompanying the article in the Free press that the money for the gym may not even be from public funds but from private sources. If so, its not just the Dems making a mountain out of a treadmill, but a wholly false smear by the Dems against a very popular and effective Attorney General.