Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gun Range Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee hears bill to shield shooting ranges from nuisance suits
Summary
Rep. Wertz and witnesses told the House Judiciary Committee HB 4949 would let existing sport shooting ranges expand or modernize without losing liability protections under the Sport Shooting Ranges Act (PA 269 of 1989); opponents warned the change could curtail local control and residents' ability to sue for community harms.
Rep. Wertz brought House Bill 4949 to the House Judiciary Committee to permit existing sport shooting ranges to update, modify or expand while preserving their liability protections under the Sport Shooting Ranges Act (PA 269 of 1989).
Supporters, including David Van Lopek of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, said the change would help long-established clubs adapt to population shifts and rising participation. "This is just simply to stop some of these nuisance lawsuits that have started to occur," Van Lopek testified, describing instances where clubs faced litigation after building berms or expanding pistol pits.
The sponsor and supporters described the bill as narrow in scope: it would allow ranges to make changes "according to generally accepted operational practices as recognized by the Commission of Natural Resources," and would not remove the requirement that ranges comply with applicable ordinances and safety standards, they said.
Committee members pressed for specifics about what "modifications and updates" the bill would protect. Minority Vice Chair Rep. Carter, who said he owns gun ranges, asked whether the language was too broad to preserve local control; Van Lopek responded with examples, saying a range might expand a rifle distance from 200 to 300 yards or add pistol pits and that those actions could be done in compliance with NRC and national standards.
An oral opponent, Heather Cole, said the 1989 law is dated and argued the bill could prevent people harmed by range changes from seeking redress. "It takes away their right to sue if they are harmed from anything that comes from the changes," Cole said.
Committee members expressed interest in further discussion with local governments and municipal organizations. Rep. Breen asked whether the sponsor had reached out to the Michigan Municipal League or Township Association; supporters said they had no organized opposition but had not worked with those groups directly on the bill language.
The committee received multiple written and submitted statements for the record, including supporters from the Insurance Alliance of Michigan, the NRA, Michigan Open Carry and others. The item was heard but not voted on; the bill will return for further consideration if the sponsor or committee schedules it.
The committee adjourned after hearing the testimony and public comment.
