Muktza for some but not others (Shabbos 47a)

The gemara says that bigdei aniyim are begadim for aniiyim but not for ashirim but bigdei ashirim are begadim for both. The mishna that it's quoting is actually referring to tuma saying that a beged that is less than 3x3 tefachim is only a beged for aniyim but not ashirim. The gemara seems to equate muktza to this. What happens if an ashir has this piece of clothing that is less than 3x3 tefachim?

The gemara says that it will be muktze. Is it muktza just for the ashirim or because it's owned by an ashir is it muktza for the ani too? What about the reverse - if it's owned by an ani would it be muktza for an ashir? The gemara in 46b is what first alerted me to this question. There it was talking about if the woman made a neder not to eat a fruit, the fruit isn't muktze because the husband could be meifer neder implying that if that wouldn't be the case it would be muktze. Tosafos says that it could be that is only the case if they were her fruit and she asired it on everyone. I think that Tosafos is saying (at least in that answer) that had she not done that then maybe it wouldn't be muktze for anyone (even her) since everyone else could eat it.

I saw tonight that the Mishna Brura deals with this exact question. In the last seif in siman 308, the Shulchan Aruch paskens that muktze for ashirim is muktza for aniim also. However the Mishna Brura there says that there really could be partial muktze. He says the determining factor is who the owner is unless it's owned by an ani and an ashir would never use it. In that case only ashirim who are part of the ani's household can move it. For an outside ashir, it would still be considered muktza.

Sorry for the lack of writing in so long. There's been a lot to say on these dapim but I just haven't had time to organize my thoughts or look through many Rishonim. Others should feel free to post or email their hearos/questions to me.