Gun groups sue Michigan Legislature over firearm bills, alleging open meetings violations
Arpan LoboA pair of Michigan-based pro-firearm organizations, Great Lakes Gun Rights and Michigan Open Carry, Inc., have sued the state Legislature over its passage of gun safety bills recently signed into law by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, arguing lawmakers violated the Open Meetings Act by not properly allowing public comment on the legislation.
Last week, Whitmer signed legislation expanding background checks on firearm purchases and creating criminal penalties for gun owners who fail to keep firearms out of the hands of minors, commonly referred to as "safe storage" laws. A third proposal to temporarily confiscate guns from those deemed a risk to themselves or others by a court is also making its way through the Legislature.
More:Whitmer expands background checks, enacts safe storage with gun safety bills
More:Michigan House OKs red flag bills to temporarily seize guns from those deemed dangerous
The lawsuit filed Thursday in the Michigan Court of Claims aims to get a temporary restraining order against the gun safety bills and laws.
Plaintiffs allege both the House and Senate judiciary committees violated Michigan's open meeting laws by not allowing opposition testimony during some of the hearings before the bills were voted on.
Committees in each chamber held hearings on the bills in March and April. In each, members heard mostly from supporters of the legislation. Groups, including speakers from Great Lakes Gun Rights and Michigan Open Carry, submitted cards in opposition but were unable to speak during an April 12 hearing on the so-called "red flag" bills. Lawmakers cited time constraints.
"Defendants have, and continue, to blatantly favor testimony from parties in support of Defendants’ own viewpoints while openly suppressing and outright denying testimony from Plaintiffs and others critical of Defendants’ viewpoint," wrote Thomas Lambert, an attorney representing the gun groups in the lawsuit. "This is in direct contravention of the Open Meetings Act’s unambiguous mandate that 'a person must be permitted to address a meeting of a public body,' which unquestionably includes Defendants."
The groups are seeking an ex parte motion, meaning they seek an order from the court before defendants can provide a brief of their own.
It isn't uncommon for committee hearings to not feature testimony from all individuals who submit cards. Opponents of gun safety legislation were able to speak at some of the committee hearings, including the House committee hearings on March 8 and March 22, and the Senate committee hearings on March 2 and March 9.
The lawsuit argues the hearings were unbalanced in terms of the number of speakers, although under both current Democratic and previous Republican leadership, committee hearings on politically contentious proposals have generally featured more speakers in favor of the position of the majority party.
The Open Meetings Act is Michigan's law requiring public bodies to make their meetings and actions accessible to members of the public. Under the OMA, boards are required to make time for members of the public who attend meetings to speak, although they do have flexibility when it comes to making time limitations for speakers.
"The Michigan House complies with the Open Meetings Act. The groups that filed the lawsuit did participate in the committee process," said Amber McCann, a spokesperson for House Democrats, over email. In a statement, Sen. Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, also said committees complied with the law.
Contact Arpan Lobo: alobo@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @arpanlobo.