A coalition of Michigan gun-rights organizations and the National Rifle Association has launched a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s longstanding permit-to-purchase requirement, arguing that forcing citizens to obtain government permission before buying a firearm violates the Second Amendment.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, brings together Michigan Open Carry, Michigan Gun Owners, the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, and the NRA in a direct challenge to a law that has existed in some form since 1927.
The plaintiffs contend that Michigan’s system unlawfully burdens a constitutional right by requiring law-abiding citizens to secure government approval before purchasing certain firearms.
“Michigan cannot require law-abiding citizens to obtain a discretionary government permission slip before exercising a fundamental constitutional right,” said attorney James Makowski, who represents Michigan Gun Owners.
The lawsuit challenges both Michigan’s firearm license-to-purchase requirements and its pistol registration system, arguing that the state’s regulatory framework is incompatible with modern Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The case is part of a broader legal movement that has accelerated since the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling significantly altered how courts evaluate gun-control laws, requiring governments to demonstrate that firearm restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
Since Bruen, gun-rights organizations have filed challenges against a wide range of firearm regulations, including newly enacted laws and restrictions that have remained on the books for decades.
Michigan is not alone in facing such litigation.
According to the Giffords Law Center, thirteen states currently maintain some form of permit-to-purchase or firearm licensing requirement. Illinois, which operates a broader firearm licensing system, was sued earlier this year by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which similarly argues that the state’s requirements violate constitutional protections.
Supporters of the Michigan lawsuit say permit-to-purchase systems create unnecessary barriers for citizens who are already legally eligible to own firearms.
“The newly filed case in Michigan highlights the growing trend of multi-layered and redundant permitting schemes which have popped up around the country,” said William Sack, Senior Director of Legal Operations for the Second Amendment Foundation.
Sack argued that such regulations make exercising constitutional rights more difficult and expensive 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,” he said.
He further argued that similar requirements would not be tolerated if applied to other constitutional protections.
“This sort of treatment would never be tolerated in the context of any other rights, and it cannot be tolerated for people’s Second Amendment rights.”
The lawsuit names Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel as a defendant. As of the filing, her office had not publicly responded to the allegations.
