By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A federal lawsuit filed over the weekend by the National Rifle Association challenges Michigan’s firearms “license-to-purchase” in a case that could have broad ramifications, because other states, including Washington and Colorado, have similar requirements scheduled to take effect this year and next.
Joining the NRA are the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, Michigan Gun Owners, Michigan Open Carry and four private citizens identified as Thomas Overly, David Raney, Reagan Janson and Dean Moser, for whom the case Moser v. Nessel, is named.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division.
Named as defendants are Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, Col. James Grady II, director of the Michigan State Police, Battle Creek Police Chief Shannon Bagley, Troy Police Chief Josh Jones, Kentwood Police Chief Bryan Litwin, Kalamazoo County Sheriff Richard Fuller III, Walker Police Chief Keith Mankel, and the cities of Battle Creek, Troy, Kentwood, and Walker. All officials named are defendants in their official capacities.
According to an NRA announcement, “Michigan law generally requires individuals who do not possess a Michigan Concealed Pistol License to obtain a government-issued License to Purchase (“LTP”) before they may purchase, possess, carry, or transport a pistol. The law further requires transaction records to be submitted to government authorities for entry into a statewide database maintained by the Michigan State Police.
“The complaint argues that Michigan’s LTP regime violates the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test set forth in the NRA’s landmark case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.”
While the lawsuit challenges Michigan’s law, an affirmative ruling could have a ripple effect. Colorado has a permit-to-purchase law looming which will require would-be buyers of certain “specified semiautomatic firearms” to complete a training course and obtain a permit to purchase, otherwise known as a Firearms Safety Course Eligibility Card. The law takes effect on Aug. 1.
In Washington, passage of House Bill 1163 last year requires would-be gun buyers to also obtain a permit-to-purchase, which will include completion of a safety course and background check independent of the federal background check to buy a guy.
As reported at the time by the Washington State Standard, “The permit system, set to take effect on May 1, 2027, goes beyond the state’s existing background checks, which also require proof of completion of a firearm safety course. Washington also has a 10-day waiting period after a gun dealer requests a background check before they can hand over the gun.
“The state patrol must issue the permit within 30 days, or 60 days if the applicant doesn’t have a state identification card. If an applicant feels the state wrongly denied them a permit, they can appeal in court.”
A full list of states with permit-to-purchase requirements is posted by Everytown for Gun Safety, a billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying organization.
Second Amendment advocates contend such purchase permit requirements are unconstitutional. Citizens should not need government permission to exercise the constitutionally-protected fundamental right to keep and bear arms, they argue.
In their federal complaint, NRA and its partners contend Michigan’s licensing and registration scheme is “inconsistent with the Second Amendment because the challenged laws lack the historical pedigree required by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen.” The complaint goes on to assert the Michigan law “violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards to protect applicants against arbitrary or erroneous deprivation of fundamental rights.”
The 51-page complaint asserts the Second Amendment “protects the right to acquire and possess arms in common use, such as handguns…The state laws—including Michigan’s LTP requirement—and local government actions challenged herein infringe those rights and thus violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Michigan’s licensing, reporting and forfeiture statutes violate the Second and Fourteenth amendments, and a permanent injunction.
