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 19 Gen 6 Compact 9mm (OR) 15rd Pistol, 4.02" GMB Barrel | Bereli | $ 620.00 |
|
|
Glock 19 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 15+1 Round Black | MidwayUSA | $ 620.00 |
|
|
Glock 17 Gen 6 9mm (OR) 17rd Pistol, 4.49" GMB Barrel | Bereli | $ 620.00 |
|
|
Glock 17 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.49" Barrel 17+1 Round Black | MidwayUSA | $ 620.00 |
|
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.
