Michigans long-standing permit-to-purchase handgun law is facing a direct constitutional challenge as state gun-rights organizations join forces with the National Rifle Association in federal court.
According to The Western Journal, Michigan Open Carry, Michigan Gun Owners (MGO), the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) and the NRA have filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The litigation, announced in a Sunday post on X by Michigan Open Carry, targets a permitting scheme dating back to 1927 that critics say is a relic of a bygone era and incompatible with modern Second Amendment jurisprudence.
An attorney representing one of the organizations argued that the law is fundamentally at odds with constitutional protections for law-abiding citizens. Michigan cannot require law?abiding citizens to obtain a discretionary government permission slip before exercising a fundamental constitutional right, MGO attorney James Makowski said in the release.
The lawsuit comes as permit-to-purchase and licensing regimes remain on the books in 13 states, according to Giffords Law Center, a gun-control advocacy group. Illinois, which imposes an even broader licensing process, was sued in May by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is likewise seeking to dismantle that framework on Second Amendment grounds.
Since the Supreme Courts landmark June 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, gun-rights advocates have been systematically targeting restrictive firearms laws nationwide. Their challenges have extended not only to newly enacted measures but also to long-standing statutes such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, arguing that many of these laws cannot survive the Courts clarified historical test for firearms regulation.
The newly filed case in Michigan highlights the growing trend of multi-layered and redundant permitting schemes which have popped up around the country, Second Amendment Foundation Senior Director of Legal Operations William Sack told the Daily Caller News Foundation. 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. This sort of treatment would never be tolerated in the context of any other rights, and it cannot be tolerated for peoples Second Amendment rights.
Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, named as a defendant in the suit, did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the DCNF. Her office will now be tasked with defending a law that critics say empowers bureaucrats at the expense of citizens ability to protect themselves and their families.
For conservatives who view the right to keep and bear arms as a core safeguard of individual liberty, the Michigan case is another critical test of whether states can impose discretionary hurdles on a constitutional freedom. As President Trumps second administration continues to appoint judges who take the text and history of the Second Amendment seriously, gun-rights advocates are betting that courts will increasingly reject permit-to-purchase schemes that treat a fundamental right as a privilege to be granted by the state.
Login