858 N.W.2d 751
Mich. Ct. App.2014Background
- Cheboygan Sportsman Club operates a shooting range since around 1952; surrounding area later developed but initial operations had no nearby residences.
- A residence on Lots 43–44 of the Sportsman Subdivision was built within the 150-yard zone of the range; Lot 45 would have been closer, and Watts owned the relevant lots.
- Watts, a former club member, reported finding a bullet on his property in June 2012 and the officer noted a 9mm bullet; investigation showed a handgun on the range was used in directions away from Watts’s property.
- Cheboygan Sportsman Club sued to preclude enforcement of MCL 324.40111 against its members; the NRA argued immunity under the Sport Shooting Ranges Act; the trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the Club.
- The majority held that the Sport Shooting Ranges Act does not apply here and that MCL 324.40111(6) is a hunting-context prohibition, not applicable to target practice at the Club’s range; therefore the Club’s members are not prosecutable under that statute under the facts presented.
- The decision affirms the declaratory judgment on different grounds, noting potential liability under other statutes remains possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sport Shooting Ranges Act provides immunity here | Club/NRA contend ranges act immunizes immunity from civil or criminal actions | Prosecutor argues act does not apply to this case | Sport Shooting Ranges Act does not apply to this case |
| Whether MCL 324.40111(6) applies to shooting ranges or only hunters | Statute intended to regulate hunting activities | Statute prohibits discharge within 150 yards of occupied structures regardless of context | Statute focuses on hunting; does not apply to target-practice at ranges |
Key Cases Cited
- Holliday v McKeiver, 156 Mich App 214 (1986) (statutory interpretation of hunting-related provisions under Game Law)
- Robinson v City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1 (2010) (contextual statutory interpretation principles)
- Arrowhead Development Co v Livingston Co Road Comm, 413 Mich 505 (1982) (contextual reading of statutory provisions in pari materia)
- McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730 (2012) (read statutes in context, avoid surplusage)
- Gladych v New Family Homes, Inc., 468 Mich 594 (2003) (interpretation principles; unambiguous language enforced)
- People v Woolfolk, 304 Mich App 450 (2014) (persuasive authority of Attorney General analyses)