|
The Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) Foundation is assisting in the appeal in support of Acme Shooting Goods, LLC, by funding an amicus curiae brief. Acme Shooting Goods, LLC, is the gun shop that sold the firearm to the parents of the Oxford school shooter. The full brief can be found by clicking on the image below.
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO) Foundation (“MCRGO Foundation”) is a Michigan non-profit corporation, tax-exempt under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3), whose mission is to educate and, where necessary, engage in litigation to support the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, while promoting responsible firearms ownership throughout the State of Michigan.
The MCRGO Foundation has a substantial institutional interest in this case because the legal principles at issue directly affect the ability of Michigan residents to exercise, in a responsible manner, their rights secured by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution. MCRGO Foundation regularly engages in educational and litigation efforts affecting firearms law and policy in Michigan and offers insights grounded in both constitutional principles and public policy considerations.
Under MCR 7.312(H)(2)(f), MCRGO Foundation is eligible to file an amicus curiae brief without need for leave of court as a tax-exempt organization under 501(c)(3) Michigan Courts. MCRGO Foundation meets that criterion and will include the required attestation of tax-exempt status as mandated.
No counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no party or party’s counsel made any monetary contribution intended to fund its preparation or submission. No person or entity other than MCRGO Foundation and its counsel made such a monetary contribution.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs-Appellants ask this Court to do what neither Congress nor the Michigan Legislature has ever done: declare the mere presence of a minor near a firearm unlawful. Michigan, the federal government, and many other states have consistently recognized that minors may lawfully possess and use firearms for training, practice, and other legitimate purposes. Plaintiffs now ask this Court to discard that settled framework and adopt a sweeping new rule that has no basis in law or policy. Their position would not only overturn well-established precedent but also upend statutory schemes and regulatory determinations carefully crafted by both state and federal authorities. In short, Plaintiffs seek a judicial rewriting of the law that is both unprecedented and contrary to the public policies long embraced in this jurisdiction and beyond.
Plaintiffs assert that the handgun transaction at issue was, in effect, a sale to the
accompanying minor. Plaintiffs contend that the mere presence of a minor during a firearm purchase is enough to trigger the predicate exception under the PLCAA and impose liability on the seller. Central to this argument is the allegation that the purchaser’s son was present during the transaction. Plaintiffs’ position necessarily treats any firearm sale made in the presence of a minor as negligent entrustment. To support their position, Plaintiffs also rely on evidence that the seller could not reasonably have known or discovered at the time. For instance, Plaintiffs provide statements the minor later made in other proceedings, despite the absence of any indication that those statements were made in the store or during the sale itself. Considered collectively, these points reflect the Plaintiffs’ broader position that the mere presence of a minor during a firearm purchase is sufficient to invoke the PLCAA’s predicate exception and expose the seller to liability.
For the Plaintiffs’ argument to prevail, it would have to rest on the premise that the presence of a minor during any firearm sale automatically constitutes negligent entrustment. Essentially, Plaintiffs are asking this Court to expand federal law well beyond its current scope to render any firearm transaction conducted in the presence of a minor illegal. Such a sweeping rule finds no support in the governing statutes or precedent. To the contrary, both the federal government and this state (as well as many others) have expressly declined to adopt this theory and, indeed, have gone further by affirmatively allowing for minors' possession of firearms under defined circumstances. Plaintiffs’ position, therefore, represents not an application of existing law, but an attempt to rewrite it.
The full brief can be found HERE or by clicking the image below.
| 
