Michigan gun owners are taking Attorney General Dana Nessel to federal court over the state’s pistol permission-slip system, and the lawsuit goes straight at one of the left’s favorite tools: making citizens ask the government for approval before exercising a constitutional right.
The case is Moser v. Nessel, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The plaintiffs include four individual Michigan gun owners, the National Rifle Association, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, Michigan Gun Owners, and Michigan Open Carry. The defendants include Nessel, Michigan State Police Director Col. James Grady II, and several local governments and law enforcement officials involved in administering Michigan’s License to Purchase system.
At issue is Michigan’s License to Purchase, Carry, Possess, or Transport a Pistol, commonly called an LTP. Under Michigan law, people who do not have a Michigan Concealed Pistol License generally must obtain an LTP before they can purchase a pistol. That means a law-abiding adult can walk into a gun shop, be legally eligible under federal law, pass a NICS background check, and still be told that Michigan wants another layer of permission first.
The complaint argues that Michigan’s system is a discretionary licensing scheme that violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
After Bruen, the government cannot simply say a gun-control law sounds reasonable. It must show that the restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The plaintiffs say Michigan cannot do that. They argue there is no historical tradition that allows a state to force ordinary, law-abiding citizens to obtain a single-use government license before acquiring a common handgun for lawful purposes.
The lawsuit also attacks the way Michigan officials can deny an LTP. Under the challenged statute, an issuing authority may deny a license if it has “probable cause” to believe the applicant would be a threat to himself or others, or would commit an offense with the firearm. The plaintiffs say the standard is vague, subjective, and ripe for abuse.
Live Inventory Price Checker
|
GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - GLOCK Night Sights - 3x 15rd Mags | Primary Arms | $ 565.68 |
|
|
GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - Aimpoint COA Optic - 3x 15rd Mags | Primary Arms | $ 885.20 |
|
|
GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - AmeriGlo Night Sights - 3x 15rd Mags | Primary Arms | $ 592.30 |
|
|
GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - Fixed Sights - 3x 15rd Mags | Primary Arms | $ 513.65 |
|
Michigan has created a “shall issue” system on paper that can operate like a “may issue” system in real life.
Bruen specifically rejected licensing systems that give officials broad discretion to decide who gets to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. A constitutional right cannot depend on whether a local police department likes the applicant, trusts the applicant, or feels comfortable with the applicant.
The individual plaintiffs’ stories show how that discretion can work in practice. Dean Moser says Troy denied his LTP based on alleged prior “contacts” and an unsubstantiated suspicion. According to the complaint, the denial did not identify the source of the information, and Moser was told there was no appeal process. Later, when he tried again in Battle Creek, he says Battle Creek denied him because Troy had denied him.
Thomas Overly’s allegations are just as troubling. He says Kentwood denied his LTP application, then federal authorities later confirmed he had no prohibiting record and issued him a UPIN. A UPIN is commonly used when a person has been wrongly delayed or denied because of a records mix-up or mistaken identity issue. But according to the lawsuit, Kentwood still refused to let him submit a new application.
The due process problem should be obvious. Michigan is not merely delaying some minor government benefit. It is blocking access to a fundamental constitutional right. The plaintiffs say the state provides no clear statutory appeal process, no neutral decision-maker, no meaningful notice of what disqualified the applicant, and no reliable procedure to correct mistakes.
The lawsuit does not stop with the purchase permit. It also challenges Michigan’s pistol sales record and database system.
The complaint argues that Michigan requires pistol transaction information to be submitted to government authorities for entry into a statewide database maintained by the Michigan State Police. Those records link a specific purchaser to a specific pistol, including identifying information about the firearm.
The plaintiffs argue that Michigan’s system creates a de facto pistol registration scheme unsupported by the historical tradition required under Bruen. The complaint says the state is not merely recording that a transaction occurred. It is collecting and retaining information tying individual citizens to specific firearms.
The NRA has framed Michigan’s system as both abusive and discretionary. NRA-ILA said the regime forces law-abiding citizens to obtain a redundant government permit even though federal law already requires background checks for firearm purchases from licensed dealers. It also pointed to the subjective dangerousness standard, lack of meaningful safeguards, lack of a statutory appeals process, and database requirements linking specific firearms to individual owners.
Michigan is not just running background checks. The state is forcing citizens through an extra government approval process, giving local officials discretion to say no, offering little meaningful recourse when the system gets it wrong, and feeding pistol ownership data into a statewide law enforcement database.
The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs want the court to declare the challenged licensing and registration provisions unconstitutional, block enforcement, stop the continued collection and use of pistol ownership data, and require the destruction or deletion of records obtained under the challenged system.
Michigan built a system that treats lawful gun ownership like a privilege to be managed by police departments and state databases.
Now gun owners are asking a federal court to remind Lansing that the Bill of Rights is not a permission slip.
Armed Citizens Confront Missouri Grocery Store Shooter, Police Say They Likely Saved Lives
Ukraine Considers Civilian Firearms Reform and Armed Self-Defense
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
Let’s state the obvious. Any “right” that requires a state issued permission slip is reduced to a privilege. NC Sheriff collected the same data as a NICS check and an additional $5.00. You had to pick up your slip of paper in person with ID, only Monday – Thursday, only 10AM – 4PM. This was time off from work, 20 minutes drive into city, pay for parking, wait in line, so a nice old lady can hand you a piece of paper with the state/county seal of approval. Grassroots NC was successful in helping to end the Jim Crow era… Read more »
A right delayed is a right denied. And waiting for a permit to be mailed to you is a delayed right. Besides the fact that you’re asking “the crown” for permission to exercise your right. But I digress…..
Folks forget that the Constitution, both federal & state, are restrictions on the GOVERNMENT. NOT citizens. They work for us. NOT the other way around.
They don’t work weekends and holidays either, so no mother may I slip until the next work day.
I am starting to suspect that all of the blue state governors and governess have an email account where they are all in a group because as soon as one asinine blue state comes up with an idea, it seems that all the other blue states attempt the same thing within a short amount of time. Right now the court is working on a new law, measure 114, that currently has a temporary hold and is under review because of legal reasons which would make us take a written and verbal gun class, undergo a background check and training in… Read more »
A right is not something you need permission for, duh. Liberalism is a dangerous mental disorder. Dangerous to liberty.
All the gun laws that apply to me were Ratified on December 15, 1791. ALL else is garbage.
The government has no authority to know if, when, how, or where we are exercising any of our natural rights. Firearms ownership is a natural right (not dependent upon the existence or facilitation of the government, such as trial by jury and voting, which are civil rights) and has been so recognized by SCOTUS.
No one would countenance for a moment that the government has authority to know if, when, how, or when you were exercising your right to religious belief.
The Second Amendment is not a second-rate right.
Thank you Michigan Open Carry for leading this fight. This is not new.
The commie state of NJ has that; don’t know how it works now, but in the 70s you had to get a rifle purchasing permit first, and if you wanted to get a pistol you had to get a separate permit for a pistol, which had to go through the Chief of police in your town for approval. Every time you bought a pistol, you had to go through the process again
Sadly this filing does not mention 18 U.S. Code § 926(a)(3), the federal prohibition of establishing a new registry, as was done in another case recently reported on by Ammoland.
Si paeninsulam pulchram inveneris, Democratici eam delebunt.