Michigan Open Carry and Great Lakes Gun Rights claim that legislative committees turned the volume down on citizen input during 2023 hearings on gun restrictions by limiting testimony to written statements.

MORE NEWS: Permitting Greenlight: Enbridge Gains Momentum for Tunnel Project with Army Corps Support

The groups argued that this violated the state’s Open Meetings Act, which requires the public be allowed to “address” government bodies. But apparently, “address” doesn’t necessarily mean “speak.”

Courts mute the mic.

Attorney Tom Lambert, who brought the case, said the point of public hearings is for decisionmakers and fellow citizens to hear viewpoints, not just skim them in their inboxes.

Lambert told WEMU, “The overall issue here is the public’s access to their lawmakers, the ability to stand before them in an open meeting and provide their viewpoint. What it is, is the right to address the meeting itself and so when you interpret the word ‘address’ you have to think of things that allow people to address the meeting.”

Lambert contends that “address” should mean addressing the actual room with your actual voice, but the Michigan Court of Claims – and now the Court of Appeals – didn’t agree.

Court to citizens: pipe down, your emails count.

The appeals court said the Legislature should have created formal rules for public testimony, but didn’t find that anyone was actually denied the chance to be heard.

Contemplating the next move.

Lambert says time limits on public comments are one thing – but reducing all testimony to emails and written testimony misses the whole point of public participation. For now, Michigan’s courts have spoken – even if Michigan’s citizens can’t.

MORE NEWS: Traverse City Finally Decides to Enforce Camping Ban in Effort to Clear Out Homeless Encampment

Lambert is consulting with his clients about a possible appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.