Sixth Circuit asks for clarity in balancing Michigan and federal gun laws

CINCINNATI (CN) — An appeals court panel sent a gun owner's challenge of federal firearm regulations back to a federal judge on Tuesday, urging both sides of the dispute to clarify their positions and shed light on relevant laws to determine whether Michigan concealed-carry license holders can skip background checks on new firearm purchases.

The unsigned decision from a three-judge Sixth Circuit panel came just two weeks after the case was argued and provided no definitive resolution of the case.

Donald Roberts and Gun Owners of America sued the federal government after Roberts attempted to buy a shotgun with his Michigan concealed-carry permit but was told by the gun store employee he would be required to submit to a federal background check.

Roberts' permit had, until recently, been qualified for an exemption under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, a piece of legislation passed in 1993 designed to prevent convicted felons from buying guns.

Michigan changed its laws in 2005 to require state and local law enforcement agencies to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, to ensure applicants were not barred from owning guns, which thus allowed its concealed-carry permits to qualify for an exemption under the Brady Act.

Things changes in 2017, however, after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, determined Michigan's officials were not keeping up their end of the bargain and failed to properly vet permit applicants.

In 2019, the Michigan State Police informed the federal government it would not conduct extensive research to determine whether applicants were excluded under certain federal criminal convictions, and so the ATF revoked the exemption.

Roberts' suit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington in December 2020, but the case is headed back to the George W. Bush appointee's desk following Tuesday's decision from the Sixth Circuit.

In its opinion, the panel noted that while both parties agree the Brady Act requires state law enforcement to perform a search of the NICS database, "what looks straightforward is not."

Roberts argued so long as the language of the state law tracks with the requirements of the federal law, it qualifies for an exemption, but the court disagreed.

"What looks to be true under a state statute may not be true," the ruling states. "There could, for example, be a state-court decision that dilutes the apparent meaning of the statute or perhaps an opinion by the Michigan attorney general that casts light on the statute. A state, in short, could not pass a seemingly compliant state statute, then ignore it for all time."

However, the ATF's interpretation has its own flaws, according to the panel, which pointed out the federal agency seeks to impose an onerous burden on state agencies that seek to determine whether an applicant is excluded from buying a gun under federal law.

"One read on the ATF's position," the court said, "is that nothing short of the investigation by the Michigan State Police of all facts that might bear on the mismatch problems between the definition of certain state-law misdemeanors and the nature of the federal ban on possessing a weapon -- including for misdemeanors in all 50 states -- would suffice." (Emphasis in original.)

Such a reading of the statute is far too broad, according to the Sixth Circuit judges, who rejected "the position that there is no limit – not even a reasonableness limitation – to a state official's duty to root out matches between federal prohibitions and state laws that do not appear on the face of the conviction."

All told, the Cincinnati-based appeals court found itself in a difficult position and remanded the case to the district court for further development of key issues.

Specifically, the panel asked the parties to provide "more detail about what the NICS database reveals" when state officials search an applicant's criminal records, and also requested the ATF to clarify its position on the obligations imposed on state agencies by the Brady Act.

The judges also requested the parties to consider negotiation and mediation, with a specific request to think about the possibility of involving the Michigan Attorney General's Office and Michigan State Police, neither of whom are parties to the case.

The panel was comprised of Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton and U.S. Circuit Judges Alice Batchelder and Joan Larsen, appointees of George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush and Donald Trump, respectively.

Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America, framed the decision as a victory.

“We are grateful that the Sixth Circuit today reversed the district court's ruling which had allowed ATF to rescind the right of persons in Michigan to purchase firearms using state licenses,” he said. “In the process, the Sixth Circuit rejected all of the reasons that ATF has advanced to disqualify Michigan residents from the right Congress gave them years ago.”

He added, “We will now go back to district court to learn whether ATF can identify some new justification for taking these rights away from those in Michigan, in violation of the federal statute. GOA's fight against ATF to preserve gun rights for Americans continues."

The ATF did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Follow @@kkoeninger44

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit