In an unprecedented move, Michigan lawmakers have introduced Senate Bill 1134, aiming to redefine how firearms are designed and perceived in the state. This legislation, introduced during a lame-duck session, targets what it calls “deceptively colored firearms,” proposing severe restrictions on firearm appearance. The bill’s implications could ripple through Second Amendment debates nationwide.
What the Bill Proposes

Senate Bill 1134, sponsored by Senator Polehanki, seeks to regulate firearm colors by restricting what it deems “deceptively colored firearms.” Under the proposed law, a firearm’s exterior must primarily consist of government-approved colors: black, brown, dark gray, dark green, silver, steel, or nickel. Any substantial portion of a firearm painted in other hues would fall under the ban.
Furthermore, the bill prohibits the sale, purchase, ownership, or even transportation of items described as “deceptive coloring products.” These products, intended to modify the color of firearms, include paints, coatings, or similar materials. Modifying a firearm to include non-approved colors would also be illegal, potentially criminalizing simple acts like customization or artistic expression.
What Constitutes “Substantial Portion”?

The language of the bill is explicit in defining what qualifies as a substantial portion of a firearm. If more than 50% of the firearm’s exterior, including key parts like the receiver or slide, features a non-approved color, it would be considered deceptively colored. Critics argue this provision is overly restrictive, making even minimal aesthetic changes grounds for legal consequences.
Consequences for Violations

Violating the terms of the bill could result in a misdemeanor charge, punishable by up to one year in prison, a $500 fine, or both. The severity of this punishment has raised concerns about criminalizing otherwise lawful firearm ownership, particularly among hobbyists and collectors who often personalize their firearms.
Exceptions and Loopholes

The bill does include some exemptions. Antique firearms and those with handles made of or resembling ivory are not subject to the restrictions. A grandfather clause allows individuals who own deceptively colored firearms or related products before the bill’s enactment to keep them. However, any transfer of such items post-enactment requires either surrender to law enforcement or modification to comply with the new law.
A Focus on “Covert Firearms”

In addition to color restrictions, the bill addresses “covert firearms.” These are defined as firearms that are constructed in such a way that they are not immediately recognizable as firearms. While the intent behind this provision might be to target weapons disguised as everyday objects, critics worry about ambiguous language leading to unintended consequences.
Implications for Gun Owners

The bill’s restrictions place significant burdens on firearm owners. Those inheriting a non-compliant firearm, for instance, must either modify it to meet government standards or surrender it to state police. This creates logistical and financial challenges, particularly for individuals unfamiliar with firearm customization or without the means to comply.
The Broader Debate on Public Safety

Supporters of the bill argue that banning brightly colored firearms enhances public safety. They claim that deceptively colored firearms might confuse law enforcement or civilians, making it harder to distinguish between toys and real weapons. However, opponents argue that the restrictions infringe on constitutional rights and offer little evidence of tangible safety benefits.
A First Amendment Twist?

Interestingly, some critics have raised First Amendment concerns, framing the bill as an attack on freedom of expression. They argue that firearm colors can represent personal identity or artistic flair. Restricting these choices, they claim, overlaps with broader issues of self-expression protected under the First Amendment.
Potential for Legal Challenges

If passed, Senate Bill 1134 could face significant legal challenges. Opponents believe the law infringes on Second Amendment rights by placing unnecessary restrictions on firearm ownership. Additionally, the burden placed on gun owners to comply with the law could be seen as an undue barrier to lawful possession.
Government Exemptions Highlight Controversy

As with many gun control measures, the proposed law includes exemptions for law enforcement and government entities. Firearms owned or used by the state or its representatives would not be subject to these color restrictions. Critics see this as a double standard, arguing that the rules should apply equally to all citizens.
A Solution in Search of a Problem?

One of the most perplexing aspects of the bill is the lack of clear evidence linking firearm color to public safety risks. Critics argue that the law targets an issue that isn’t prevalent, creating unnecessary hurdles for responsible gun owners without addressing pressing concerns like firearm violence or illegal trafficking.
The Specificity of the Bill

The specificity of the bill is what I find both interesting and troubling. Limiting a firearm’s color to a narrow palette feels oddly bureaucratic for an issue as nuanced as public safety. Who decides that black, gray, or green are inherently safer than blue or red? It’s almost amusing, except for the real-world consequences. People might think this is about aesthetics, but it’s actually about control.
Moreover, I wonder if this law unintentionally inspires defiance. By telling people their firearm can’t be pink, does it not invite them to challenge the system, perhaps with a spray can in hand? Laws like these often spark more backlash than compliance, especially when the justification feels flimsy.
A Law to Watch

Senate Bill 1134 could mark a turning point in firearm regulation, testing the boundaries of what states can enforce under the guise of public safety. While supporters champion its intentions, the law’s restrictive nature and potential legal pitfalls have sparked widespread debate. Whether it passes or not, the conversation it has ignited about the balance between safety, freedom, and expression is unlikely to fade anytime soon.

A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa writes about homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Whether it’s canning vegetables or setting up a rainwater harvesting system, Lisa’s goal is to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.