LANSING, Mich. — On Sunday, June 14, a coalition of gun rights groups filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging elements of Michigan’s presumptively unconstitutional registration and licensing schemes.
Moser v. Nessel was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan and includes three co-plaintiffs along with the National Rifle Association (NRA), Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO), Michigan Gun Owners (MGO), and Michigan Open Carry (MOC). The suit names Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel as a defendant, along with numerous other state officials.
The 51-page complaint facially challenges the constitutionality of Michigan’s License to Purchase, Carry, Possess, or Transport a Pistol, and also brings a due process challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that the scheme, “…fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards to protect applicants against arbitrary or erroneous deprivation of fundamental rights.”
According to the NRA, 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.
Like that of many other states, the Michigan law lacks objectivity and allows the state to deny rights under a “probable cause” mechanism, while providing neither an appeals process nor disclosure of what the offending “disqualifying” condition is. It also maintains a de facto state registry of pistol owners.
The complaint also notes that “The LTP regime requires forfeiture of firearms based on violations of law committed by third parties over whom the purchaser has no control or authority.”
Similar to New Jersey, the licensing process duplicates the very same federal process that is already conducted by federally licensed firearms dealers who utilize the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) point-of-sale background check.
The collective result is a system “…whose attempts at navigating the arbitrary process lay bare its constitutional repugnance,” states the complaint.
Applying Supreme Court precedent to its challenge framework, the complaint asserts, “…portions of Michigan’s firearm licensing and registration regime, as inconsistent with the Second Amendment because the challenged laws lack the historical pedigree required [Bruen] and because Michigan’s licensing regime is abusive.”
