Michigan’s long-running gun purchase law is about to face a major constitutional test, and if the plaintiffs have their way, a system that’s been on the books for nearly a century could be headed for the legal chopping block.
A coalition of gun-rights organizations, joined by the National Rifle Association, has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Michigan’s permit-to-purchase requirement and pistol registration system. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan and brings together Michigan Open Carry, Michigan Gun Owners, the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, and the NRA in a coordinated effort to overturn the law.
At the heart of the dispute is a simple question: Can the government require a law-abiding citizen to obtain permission before purchasing a firearm?
The plaintiffs argue the answer is no.
Michigan’s permit-to-purchase framework dates all the way back to 1927, making it one of the older firearm regulations still in effect. Supporters of the law view it as a public safety measure. Critics see it as an unnecessary hurdle placed between citizens and a constitutional right.
Michigan Gun Owners attorney James Makowski didn’t mince words.
“Michigan cannot require law-abiding citizens to obtain a discretionary government permission slip before exercising a fundamental constitutional right,” he said when announcing the lawsuit.
That phrase — “government permission slip” — gets right to the core of the argument being made by Second Amendment advocates. They contend that no other constitutional right is subjected to the same type of pre-approval process.
Imagine needing government authorization before publishing an opinion online or attending a church service. That’s the comparison many gun-rights supporters are drawing as they challenge these laws in court.
And Michigan is hardly alone.
According to the Giffords Law Center, thirteen states currently maintain some form of permit-to-purchase or firearm licensing requirement. Similar legal fights are now popping up around the country. Illinois, for example, is facing its own challenge after a lawsuit was filed earlier this year seeking to overturn that state’s firearm licensing system.
The legal momentum behind these challenges can largely be traced back to one Supreme Court decision.
In June 2022, the Court handed down its landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That decision dramatically reshaped Second Amendment litigation by requiring governments to justify gun restrictions using the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Since then, gun-rights groups have been moving aggressively.
Some challenges target newly enacted gun-control measures. Others, like the Michigan lawsuit, focus on laws that have existed for decades. Nothing is considered too old to be reexamined under the Supreme Court’s new framework.
William Sack of the Second Amendment Foundation believes Michigan’s case is part of a larger trend.
“The newly filed case in Michigan highlights the growing trend of multi-layered and redundant permitting schemes which have popped up around the country,” Sack said.
He argues that these systems make exercising constitutional rights more expensive, more complicated, and more time-consuming than necessary.
“The intent of these permit regimes is clear: make the exercise of law-abiding Americans’ fundamental rights more burdensome, more expensive, and more time consuming,” Sack said.
The lawsuit names Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel as a defendant. As of the filing, her office had not publicly responded to the allegations.
Now the issue moves into federal court, where judges will have to decide whether a law that has survived for nearly 100 years can withstand the legal standards established by the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment rulings.
