STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS

MICHIGAN OPEN CARRY, INC. and

GREAT LAKES GUN RIGHTS Case No: 23-_______________________-MZ
Plaintiffs,
Hon. ________________________________
v.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
MICHIGAN HOUSE OF REPRESENATIVES and
MICHIGAN SENATE
Defendants
______________________________________/

Thomas J. Lambert (P86348)

Thomas J. Lambert, PLC
Attorney for Plaintiffs
PO Box 8041
Kentwood, MI 49518
(616) 275-2976
tlambert@tjlplc.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLATORY

AND EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELEIF

Plaintiffs MICHIGAN OPEN CARRY, INC. and GREAT LAKES GUN RIGHTS through
RECEIVED by MCOC 4/13/2023 9:53:18 AM

counsel, bring this Complaint for Declaratory and Emergency Injunctive Relief against
Defendants MICHIGAN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and MICHIGAN SENATE, and state as
follows.

INTRODUCTION

1. Every state in the Nation and the Federal government has enacted some form
of open meetings law to ensure governmental accountability by providing citizens with the
right to witness, view, and participate in the democratic process. These laws form a
minimum expectation of openness and transparency for public bodies and officials while
they engage in the process of decision making.

2. Defendants are intentionally violating these minimum expectations by

purposely limiting or outright excluding participation in the legislative process by illegally
denying the opportunity to address them as public bodies either directly or through a
committee as expressly required by the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

3. Moreover, Defendants violations, in which they are unquestionably favoring the

speech of those who support their political positions while suppressing the speech of those

1
 who are critical, are based on the viewpoint of the speech they are discriminating against, in
violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

4. Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that the Defendants’ practice of limiting,

or outright excluding, participation in the legislative process by way of denying the
opportunity to provide committee testimony violates the Michigan Open Meetings Act.

5. Plaintiffs also seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief with immediate
consideration thereof to prevent Defendants from causing further irreparable harm.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff MICHIGAN OPEN CARRY, INC. (hereinafter “MOC”) is a Michigan not-

for-profit advocacy organization created under the Nonprofit Corporation Act of 1982, that
supports the lawful carry of handguns for self-defense. MOC provides written material for
the use of its members, municipalities, and law enforcement that outlines the laws
associated with the lawful carry of handguns.

7. Plaintiff GREAT LAKES GUN RIGHTS (hereinafter “GLGR”) is the Michigan

affiliate of the National Association for Gun Rights, a non-partisan non-profit organization
under section 501(c)4 of the IRS code that supports the right to keep and bear arms of all
people. GLGR informs its members, elected officials and the general public about pressing
matters in relation to these rights and encourages like-minded individuals to lobby their
officials in support of their Second Amendment rights.

8. Defendant MICHIGAN HOUSE OF REPRESENATIVES (hereinafter the “House”)

is a state legislative body formed under the Constitution of the State of Michigan.

9. The House is a “public body” as that term is defined in the Michigan Open
RECEIVED by MCOC 4/13/2023 9:53:18 AM

Meetings Act, MCL 15.262(a).

10. Defendant MICHIGAN SENATE (hereinafter the “Senate”) is a state legislative

body formed under the Constitution of the State of Michigan.

11. The Senate is a “public body” as that term is defined in the Michigan Open
Meetings Act, MCL 15.262(a).

JURISDICTION

12. This Court has jurisdiction under MCL 600.6419(1)(a) together with MCL
15.271(1).

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

13. The Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.261 – 15.275, generally governs how
“public bodies” meet and come to decisions.

2
 14. “The primary purpose of the OMA is to ensure that public entities conduct all
their decision-making activities in open meetings and not simply hold open meetings where
they rubber-stamp decisions that were previously made behind closed doors.” Schmiedicke v
Clare Sch Bd, 228 Mich App 259, 264, 577 NW2d 706, 709 (1998), abrogated on other grounds
by Speicher v Columbia Twp Bd of Trustees, 497 Mich 125, 860 NW2d 51 (2014). The drafters
of the Open Meetings Act “perceived openness in government as a means of promoting
responsible decision making.” Booth Newspapers, Inc v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444
Mich 211, 222, 507 NW2d 422, 427 (1993). “‘[O]pen government is believed to serve as both
a light and disinfectant in exposing potential abuse and misuse of power. The deliberation of
public policy in the public forum is an important check and balance on self-government.’” Id.
Because of the important purposes protected by the Open Meetings Act, courts have
“historically interpreted the statute broadly, while strictly construing its exemptions and
imposing on public bodies the burden of proving that an exemption exists.” Id. at 223, 428.

15. Under Section 3 of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.263(2), in general,
“[a]ll decisions of a public body must be made at a meeting open to the public.”

16. Under the same Section, MCL 15.263(5), “[a] A person must be permitted to
address a meeting of a public body under rules established and recorded by the public body.
The legislature or a house of the legislature may provide by rule that the right to address may
be limited to prescribed times at hearings and committee meetings only.”

17. While the House is in session, or a committee of the House, it is deliberating

and/or making decisions as those terms are defined by statute or have been defined by
precedential case law.

18. While the Senate is in session, or a committee of the Senate, it is deliberating

and/or making decisions as those terms are defined by statute or have been defined by
RECEIVED by MCOC 4/13/2023 9:53:18 AM

precedential case law.

19. On February 16, 2023, various members of the Senate introduced 11 bills
pertaining to firearms (collectively the “Senate bills”).

20. Those 11 bills were assigned bill numbers SB 76 ’23 through SB 86 ’23.

21. All 11 bills were assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee

22. The Senate Judiciary Committee has meet twice to discuss the Senate Bills;
during two regularly scheduled meetings on March 2 and March 9, 2023

23. On February 28, 2023, various members of the House introduced 11 similar
bills pertaining to firearms (collectively the “House bills”).

24. Those 11 bills were assigned bill numbers HB 4138 ’23 through HB 4148 ’23.

25. All 11 bills were referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

3
 26. The House Judiciary Committee has meet four times to discuss the House Bills
and/or the Senate Bills; during two special meetings on March 1 and March 8, 2023, and
during two regularly scheduled meetings on March 22 and April 13, 2023.

27. Individuals wishing to testify to a House or Senate committee are given

standard instructions to fill out and submit a 4”x6” card containing the name of the individual;
the organization they represent; whether the individual wishes to testify; and whether the
individual or organization supports, opposes, or is neutral on the bills before a committee.

28. While the process for submitting a card to address a committee is well
established, it is not provided for in either the House rules or the Senate rules.

29. There is no House rule that limits the right of the public to address the House
to committee hearings and meetings only.

30. There is no House rule that permits discrimination against a person wishing to
address the House via a committee based on the person’s viewpoint.

31. There is no House rule that permits a person to be entirely prohibited from
addressing the House via a committee.

32. There is no Senate rule that limits the right of the public to address the Senate
to committee hearings and meetings only.

33. There is no Senate rule that permits discrimination against a person wishing
address the Senate via a committee based on the person’s viewpoint.

34. There is no Senate rule that permits a person to be entirely prohibited from
addressing the Senate via a committee.
RECEIVED by MCOC 4/13/2023 9:53:18 AM

35. Further firearm related bills have been introduced in both the House and the
Senate, and leadership has publicly expressed an intent to continue their work.

36. Plaintiffs intend to continue their attempts to testify at further hearings or

otherwise address Defendants as public bodies during open meetings.

COUNT I
VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS ACT
DEFENDANT HOUSE – MARCH 1, 2023

37. Plaintiffs incorporate the previous allegations as if set forth word for word
herein.

38. On March 1, 2023, the House Judiciary Committee convened for a special
hearing.

39. The agenda for the hearing was posted only minutes before the hearing started
and included all 11 House bills.

4
 40. Multiple individuals and organizations, including Plaintiffs, submitted cards
indicating opposition to the bills and a desire to testify at the March 1 hearing.

41. 16 individuals representing a total of 10 organizations were permitted to testify

at the March 1 hearing.

42. All who were permitted to testify expressed support for the bills.

43. No testimony in opposition to the bills was permitted.

44. Plaintiffs, and others, were denied an opportunity to address the House via the
House Judiciary Committee in violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.263(5).

COUNT II
VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS ACT
DEFENDANT SENATE – MARCH 2, 2023

45. Plaintiffs incorporate the previous allegations as if set forth word for word
herein.

46. On March 2, 2023, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened for a regularly
scheduled hearing.

47. The agenda for the March 2 hearing included all 11 Senate bills.

48. Multiple individuals and organizations, including Plaintiffs, submitted cards

indicating opposition to the bills and a desire to testify at the March 2 hearing.

49. In addition to three bill sponsors, 19 individuals representing 10 organizations

RECEIVED by MCOC 4/13/2023 9:53:18 AM

were permitted to testify in support.

50. Only 2 individuals representing 1 organization were permitted to testify in

opposition.

51. The individuals testifying in opposition were directed to limit their testimony to
“2 to 3 minutes.”

52. No such or similar direction was given to those testifying in support.

53. Plaintiffs, and others, were denied an opportunity to address the Senate via the
Senate Judiciary Committee in violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.263(5).

COUNT III
VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS ACT
DEFENDANT HOUSE – MARCH 8, 2023

54. Plaintiffs incorporate the previous allegations as if set forth word for word
herein.

5
 55. On March 8, 2023, the House Judiciary Committee held another special
hearing.

56. The agenda for the March 8 hearing included the same 11 House bills.

57. Multiple individuals and organizations, including Plaintiffs, submitted cards

indicating opposition to the bills and a desire to testify at the March 8 hearing.

58. 16 individuals representing 9 organizations were permitted to testify at the

March 8 hearing.

59. All who were permitted to testify expressed support for the bills except for a
single individual.

60. The individual expressing opposition was interrupted by the Committee Chair
before finishing his testimony.

61. Those who expressed support for the bills were not interrupted even if they
testified considerably longer.

62. No further opposition testimony was permitted.

63. At the end of the hearing, 3 of the 11 House bills were voted on and reported
out of the Committee to the House Floor.

64. Later the same evening on March 8, 2023, the House voted to pass the 3 bills.

65. Plaintiffs, and others, were denied an opportunity to address the House via the
House Judiciary Committee in violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.263(5).
RECEIVED by MCOC 4/13/2023 9:53:18 AM

COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS ACT
DEFENDANT SENATE – MARCH 9, 2023

66. Plaintiffs incorporate the previous allegations as if set forth word for word
herein.

67. On March 9, 2023, the Senate Judiciary Committee held another regularly
scheduled hearing.

68. The agenda for the March 9 hearing included all 11 Senate bills.

69. At the beginning of the March 9 hearing, the Committee Chair indicated a time
limit of 3 minutes that was not applied to the previous, one-sided hearing on March 2.

70. Multiple individuals and organizations, including Plaintiffs, submitted cards

indicating opposition to the bills and a desire to testify at the March 9 hearing.

6
 71. 21 individuals representing 17 organizations were permitted to testify in
support of the bills while 7 individuals representing 5 organizations were permitted to testify
in opposition.

72. Plaintiff MOC was permitted to testify.

73. Plaintiff GLGR was not permitted to testify.

74. At the conclusion of the hearing all 11 bills were reported out of the Senate
Judiciary Committee to the Senate Floor.

75. The following week on March 16, 2023, the Senate passed all 11 bills by narrow
party-line votes.

76. Plaintiff MOC, and others, were denied an opportunity to address the Senate
fairly under rules established and recorded via the Senate Judiciary Committee in violation of
the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.263(5).

77. Plaintiff GLGR, and others, were denied an opportunity to address the Senate
via the Senate Judiciary Committee in violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL
15.263(5).

COUNT V
VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS ACT
DEFENDANT HOUSE – MARCH 22, 2023

78. Plaintiffs incorporate the previous allegations as if set forth word for word
herein.
RECEIVED by MCOC 4/13/2023 9:53:18 AM

79. On March 22, 2023, the House Judiciary Committee held a third hearing.

80. The agenda for the March 22 hearing included 20 bills, the 8 remaining House
bills, the 11 Senate bills, and 1 other unrelated bill.

81. The Committee Chair directed that testimony be limited to the bills pertaining
to storage of firearms.

82. Multiple individuals and organizations, including Plaintiffs, submitted cards

indicating opposition to the bills and a desire to testify at the March 22 hearing.

83. 4 individuals and organizations were permitted to testify in support of the bills.

84. 1 individual and 1 individual representing an organization were permitted to

testify in opposition to the bills.

85. Plaintiff MOC was permitted to testify.

86. Plaintiff GLGR was not permitted to testify.

7
 87. Only those opposing the bills were directed to limit the time of their testimony
to “a few minutes” and “two minutes max.”

88. The Committee Chair repeatedly interrupted the testimony of those opposing
the bills.

89. Those supporting the bills were allowed to testify at length without interruption.

90. At the end of the hearing, 4 of the House bills and 4 of the Senate bills were
voted on and reported out of the Committee to the House Floor.

91. Later that day, the House voted to pass the 4 House bills.

92. Plaintiff MOC, and others, were denied an opportunity to address the House
fairly under rules established and recorded via the House Judiciary Committee in violation of
the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.263(5).

93. Plaintiff GLGR, and others, were denied an opportunity to address the House
via the House Judiciary Committee in violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL
15.263(5)

COUNT VI
VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS ACT
DEFENDANT HOUSE – APRIL 13, 2023

94. Plaintiffs incorporate the previous allegations as if set forth word for word
herein.

95. On April 13, 2023, the House Judiciary Committee held a fourth hearing.
RECEIVED by MCOC 4/13/2023 9:53:18 AM

96. The agenda for the April 13 hearing included 14 bills, the 4 remaining House
bills, 4 of the Senate bills, and 6 other unrelated bills.

97. Multiple individuals and organizations, including Plaintiffs, submitted cards

indicating opposition to the bills and a desire to testify at the April 13 hearing.

98. 4 individuals and organizations were permitted to testify.

99. All who were permitted to testify expressed support for the bills.

100. No testimony in opposition to the bills was permitted.

101. Plaintiffs, and others, were denied an opportunity to address the House via the
House Judiciary Committee in violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.263(5).

RELIEF REQUESTED

102. Plaintiffs respectfully requests this Court to:

8
 a. Grant Plaintiffs’ request for an emergency hearing on their request for a
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction;

a. Enter judgement declaring Defendants in violation of the Open Meetings Act as

outlined above;

b. Issue a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction against Defendants compelling

compliance with the Open Meetings Act and/or enjoining further
noncompliance;

c. Award actual attorney fees and costs as required by MCL 15.271(4) or any
other law; and

d. Grant all other relief that the Court deems equitable and just.

VERIFICATION

I declare under the penalties of perjury that this Verified Complaint for Declaratory and
Emergency Injunctive Relief has been examined by me and that its contents are true to the
best of my information, knowledge, and belief.

Thomas J. Lambert /s/

Date: April 13, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,

RECEIVED by MCOC 4/13/2023 9:53:18 AM

Thomas J. Lambert /s/

Thomas J. Lambert (P86348)
Thomas J. Lambert, PLC
Attorney for Plaintiffs
PO Box 8041
Kentwood, MI 49518
(616) 275-2976
tlambert@tjlplc.com