MICHIGAN COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Member Questions

Q: How many guns can I sell per month or per year without a Federal Firearms License?

A: Federal law does not contain a “magic number” of guns that triggers the requirement that an individual hold an FFL. The law states that those who are “engaged in the business” of selling firearms must hold the license. 18 USC Sec. 921 (a)(21) states: “The term ‘engaged in the business’ means - …a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but the term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.” [emphasis added].

So, clearly, the test is the objective, or goal, of the seller. Note that the test is not a given number of sales, or the amount of money involved, or the number of hours spent on firearms trading. If the primary goal for engaging in the regular course of business is to provide all of a person’s livelihood, or even as an income supplement, an FFL is required. This does not mean that you cannot sell a given gun for more than you paid for it, or that you cannot liquidate an entire collection if you so choose, without an FFL. However, it does mean that if you are involved in acquiring, and then liquidating guns with the primary goal being to make money on the trades, you should have an FFL.

Q: Can police search my vehicle because of my MCRGO, or NRA window or bumper sticker?

A: Not without more basis for suspicion. A 2002 Texas case heard in the Federal 5th Circuit ruled that a vehicle search based solely on the fact that the vehicle sported an NRA sticker was unconstitutional. In Estep v. Dallas County, Tex. the Court held that: “The presence of the NRA sticker in the vehicle should not have raised the inference that the Defendant was dangerous and that he might gain immediate control of a weapon. Regardless of whether there is some correlation between the display of an NRA sticker and gun possession, placing an NRA sticker in one’s vehicle is certainly legal and constitutes expression which is protected by the First Amendment. A police officer’s inference that danger is afoot because a citizen displays an NRA sticker in his vehicle presents disturbing First and Fourth Amendment implications.” The Court also stated: “If the presence of an NRA sticker and camouflage gear in a vehicle could be used by an officer to conclude that he was in danger, half of the pickups in Texas would be subject to a vehicle search.” While this case is not controlling authority for Michigan, which is within the 6th Circuit, it is powerful persuasive authority and the outcome of a similar case would doubtless be the same here.

This information is provided by The Law Offices of Steven W. Dulan, PLC (www.stevenwdulan.com) These answers are intended as general information and should not be relied upon as legal advice for any specific situation or case. The facts of each case vary and you should consult an attorney whenever you have specific questions.
——————————————————————————–

Letter from Representative Daniel J. Acciavatti, primary sponsor of House Bill 4759

June 12, 2007 — In 2000 when the Michigan Legislature originally passed concealed weapons legislation, they created so-called “gun free safe zones” to protect Michigan’s citizens. The intent of such legislation is to provide an area where firearms are forbidden and thus make those areas “safer”. In effect, two groups of people carry firearms in safe zones: police officers and criminals.

A real life game of “cops and robbers” plays out in these areas while law-abiding citizens are stripped of the ability to defend themselves and must rely on the state and the state alone. These gun-free safe zones are dangerous areas where criminals can target powerless citizens.

Currently, Michigan has nine specific areas which concealed weapon license (CPL) holders are banned from carrying a concealed weapon. These include:

1- Schools or school property; 2- Public or private day care centers; 3- Sports arenas or stadiums; 4- A tavern or bar where the primary source of income is the sale of alcohol/liquor consumed on the premises; 5- Any property of facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, other place of worship; 6- An entertainment facility that has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more; 7- A hospital; 8- A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college or university; and 9- Casinos.

Office buildings, hospitals, convenience stores, Post Office buildings, day care centers, schools, universities and chain restaurants have all been targets of shootings with the intent on killing multiple victims. A striking paradox is associated with these incidents because they are much more likely to occur in areas that have been designated as gun free zones.

Schools became a popular target for shootings in the mid 1990’s, around the time that the Gun Free School Zones act of 1994 was enacted. In 1999, John Lott and William Landes published an extensive statistical study of multiple shootings incidents. They showed that mass shootings occur less often in areas where responsible citizens are allowed permits to carry concealed weapons. Have you ever heard of a mass shooting in a police station, a pistol range, or a gun show? Criminals always select a softer target for their acts of violence where they know citizens are unarmed, vulnerable, and where they know people cannot shoot back at them.

Some say we need tougher gun control laws and that allowing guns in selected areas is going to increase crime. However, reports show that crime increases in selected areas that require the citizens to disarm before entering. Citizens with CPL licenses abide by the law and disarm when asked to do so; but criminals with the intent to harm never follow the law and disarm.

Concealed weapon license holders are some of the most law abiding citizens in our state. Over the past five years 203,051 concealed weapon permits have been issued in Michigan and only 671 licenses have been revoked. That equals less than one percent (actually .34%) of all issued licenses that have been revoked.

As a State Representative I was elected to pass laws which protect the citizens of Michigan. That is why I introduced House Bill 4759 into the Michigan House of Representatives on May 15, 2007. This legislation would eliminate the above nine safe zones for all concealed weapon license holders.

I believe this legislation is imperative in protecting Michigan’s citizens. Currently, the bill has been referred to the House Committee on Judiciary and is awaiting a committee hearing. Good intentions do not necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the law ultimately saves lives. Unfortunately, our current laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens and not criminals.

–Representative Daniel J. Acciavatti

Daniel J. Acciavatti was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives in November of 2002, representing the 32nd House District which includes portions of Macomb and St. Clair counties in eastern Michigan. Upon his graduation from the University of Michigan, Dan assumed a role in the business founded by his father, until he ran for State Representative in 2003. Dan and his wife Michelle currently reside in Chesterfield Township.