Key Takeaways
- Two Michigan House Republicans introduced bills to repeal state prohibitions on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and suppressors.
- The current law relies on a federal registration process blocked by a federal court, creating legal uncertainties for owners.
- House Bill 6285 aims to eliminate definitions and prohibitions related to short-barreled firearms and silencers.
- House Bill 6284 updates felony sentencing guidelines to reflect these changes, removing references to short-barreled rifles and silencers.
- Lawmakers argue that responsible gun owners shouldn’t face felony charges due to outdated state laws amidst federal changes.
Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
LANSING, MI — Two Michigan House Republicans introduced a two-bill package on August 27, 2026 that would repeal Michigan’s stand-alone criminal prohibitions on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and suppressors, a change the sponsors say is needed because the state’s current exceptions are built on a federal registration process that a federal court has now blocked.
House Bill 6285 comes from Rep. James DeSana, R-Carleton, and House Bill 6284 comes from Rep. Mike Hoadley, as reported by MI House Republicans.
Michigan law today restricts short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and suppressors, and then carves out exceptions tied to compliance with federal law. Violations involving short-barreled rifles and shotguns carry felony penalties of up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $2,500, or both. Firearm mufflers and silencers are prohibited under a separate section of state law, subject to exceptions provided by law.
Here is the problem in plain terms. If the state exception says “legal if you followed the federal process,” and the federal process stops being enforced, the exception a Michigan owner was relying on can quietly stop doing its job while the state felony stays exactly where it is.
That is not hypothetical. According to the Second Amendment Foundation, a federal district court for the Northern District of Texas entered Final Judgment on August 5, 2026 in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF on the plaintiffs’ enumerated-powers claims, permanently barring enforcement of a list of National Firearms Act provisions as to untaxed firearms, excluding NFA-defined “any other weapons.” The blocked provisions include the making, transfer, registration and identification requirements that have governed suppressors and short-barreled firearms since 1934. The court stayed its judgment for seven days so the government could seek relief on appeal. That window closed at 12:01 a.m. Central on August 13, 2026, and SAF says the government reportedly chose not to appeal. The Michigan release describes the same development, noting the ruling came after the applicable federal making and transfer taxes were reduced to zero.
SAF is blunt about the limit of that win, and every Michigan reader needs to hear it: state-law requirements are not enjoined by the Jensen decision and remain in effect. A federal court telling ATF to stand down does nothing to a state statute. Michigan’s prohibitions are still Michigan’s prohibitions.
DeSana’s HB 6285 is the substantive bill. It removes the state-law definitions of “short-barreled rifle” and “short-barreled shotgun,” eliminates the prohibition on firearm mufflers and silencers, and repeals the separate criminal prohibition on short-barreled rifles and shotguns.
Hoadley’s HB 6284 is the cleanup. It updates Michigan’s felony sentencing guidelines to match, removing the sentencing classification for possession of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun and removing “silencer” from the sentencing description attached to the state’s prohibited-weapons law.
More from USA Carry:
“Michigan residents should not suddenly find themselves facing felony charges because the federal registration process our state laws have relied upon may be changing,” DeSana said in the release. “Responsible firearm owners who followed every rule should not be punished because an outdated Michigan statute failed to keep pace with changes in federal law.”
I will continue tracking HB 6284 and HB 6285, and the fallout from the Jensen injunction in states whose suppressor and short-barrel statutes lean on the federal framework.
