Lansing, Michigan – A pair of legislative proposals in the Michigan Senate, Senate Bill 853 and Senate Bill 854, are drawing scrutiny for their potential impact on firearms retailers across the state. Authored by Democratic State Senator Stephanie Chang, these bills seek to introduce new state-level requirements for gun store owners, layered on top of existing federal regulations. Both bills are currently under consideration by the Michigan Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety, which Senator Chang chairs. A hearing was scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, to discuss the proposed legislation.
"As they see these hardware bans are coming under immense scrutiny and hopefully soon the Supreme Court does their job and shoots down these ridiculous gun bans, they’re looking to find their next off-ramp for what their next boondoggle will be for gun control, and that is going after law-abiding FFLs." — Justin Davis, Spokesperson for the NRA
Senate Bill 853 focuses on state licensing for firearms retailers. It mandates that every firearms retailer operating in Michigan must secure a state-issued license within 18 months of the bill becoming law. A critical component of this requirement is that applicants must already possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL), the federal credential necessary for legally selling guns commercially. However, this stipulation appears to create a potential conflict with federal law. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) states on its official website that an FFL will not be issued to an applicant who is not already in full compliance with the laws of their state and locality. ATF application instructions explicitly note, “State laws or local ordinances may require additional licenses or permits for firearms licenses.” This creates a potential paradox where Michigan would require a federal license before granting a state license, while the federal government would require state compliance—and potentially a state license—before approving the federal one. Neither Senator Chang nor the ATF returned requests for comment regarding this apparent contradiction.
Separately, Senate Bill 854 introduces its own set of mandates, independent of the licensing paradox. This bill would require gun store owners to install and continuously maintain comprehensive video surveillance systems. These systems would need to operate throughout all business hours, with motion-detection recording engaged after closing. The footage captured must be clear enough to identify individual firearm purchasers, a standard that effectively necessitates high-definition camera equipment across the premises. Furthermore, this footage would need to be preserved for a period of six full years.
The data storage demands associated with SB 854 are considerable. Optiview, a surveillance equipment manufacturer, estimates that a 16-camera system recording at 1080p resolution would consume approximately 640 gigabytes of storage daily, accumulating close to 19 terabytes each month. Western Digital’s storage calculator suggests that the annual burden for a 12-camera 1080p system could exceed 181 terabytes. This implies that even smaller retailers would likely need to invest in dedicated server infrastructure to meet the legal requirements for data retention.
Justin Davis, a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association (NRA), commented on the broader strategy he perceives behind such legislation. He told the Daily Caller News Foundation that gun control advocates are deliberately shifting their focus toward licensing restrictions. "As they see these hardware bans are coming under immense scrutiny and hopefully soon the Supreme Court does their job and shoots down these ridiculous gun bans, they’re looking to find their next off-ramp for what their next boondoggle will be for gun control, and that is going after law-abiding FFLs," Davis stated.
Davis further argued that the bills are designed to disproportionately affect smaller dealers who may lack the extensive legal and financial resources required to navigate the new regulations. He elaborated, "Because if they can restrict the opportunity to buy firearms from the legal dealers, then that means less people will be able to buy firearms and what this really does is it doesn’t really attack the major manufacturers and distributors, it really goes after these mom-and-pop stores that don’t have a team of lawyers to go through this insane amount of paperwork." Addressing the surveillance storage demands specifically, Davis noted, "Just the storage of, of data that’s required to have, you know, whatever timeline they put on for the amount of years or days or months to have all that footage stored, you’d have to have these massive server rooms."
Michigan is not the first state to consider this type of legislation. Maine’s House of Representatives, for instance, rejected a comparable FFL-targeting bill on April 9. Davis also drew a connection between the timing of these bills and the April 26 assassination attempt on President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, suggesting that anti-Second Amendment groups are emphasizing firearm access in its aftermath. The suspect in that incident, Cole Allen, legally purchased both a shotgun and a handgun in California, a state known for its stringent gun laws, which include a statewide record of firearm sales, bans on certain weapons, and a prohibition on private gun transfers.
The Justice Department addressed the broader legislative landscape in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation, saying, “The Second Amendment Section continues to monitor legislative action across the United States and will enforce Second Amendment rights as necessary to ensure state and local laws are implemented within the confines of Supreme Court jurisprudence.”
