Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1542 (2026)

Sport shooting ranges; civil liability or criminal prosecution; state rules or regulations.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

SPORT SHOOTING RANGES

Act 269 of 1989

691.1542 Sport shooting ranges; civil liability or criminal prosecution; state rules or regulations.

Sec. 2.

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and in addition to other protections provided in this act, a person who owns or operates or uses a sport shooting range that conforms to generally accepted operation practices in this state is not subject to civil liability or criminal prosecution in any matter relating to noise or noise pollution resulting from the operation or use of the range if the range is in compliance with any noise control laws or ordinances that applied to the range and its operation at the time of construction or initial operation of the range.

(2) In addition to other protections provided in this act, a person who owns, operates, or uses a sport shooting range that conforms to generally accepted operation practices is not subject to an action for nuisance, and a court of the state shall not enjoin or restrain the use or operation of a range on the basis of noise or noise pollution, if the range is in compliance with any noise control laws or ordinances that applied to the range and its operation at the time of construction or initial operation of the range.

(3) Rules or regulations adopted by any state department or agency for limiting levels of noise in terms of decibel level which may occur in the outdoor atmosphere do not apply to a sport shooting range exempted from liability under this act. However, this subsection does not restrict the application of any provision of the generally accepted operation practices.

History: 1989, Act 269, Imd. Eff. Dec. 26, 1989 ;-- Am. 1994, Act 250, Imd. Eff. July 5, 1994

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1998–2014 · leading case: Cheboygan Sportsman Club v. Cheboygan Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney, 858 N.W.2d 751 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cheboygan Sportsman Club v. Cheboygan Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney, 858 N.W.2d 751 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “1542, such ranges are immune to “civil liability or criminal prosecution in any matter relating to noise or noise pollution,” “an action for nuisance,” and an injunction against “the use or operation of a range on the basis of noise or noise pollution” if those ranges were in…”

Ray Twp. v. B & BS Gun Club, 575 N.W.2d 63 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “MCL 691.1542; MSA 18.1234(42). The amendments of the ssra by 1994 PA 250 took effect July 5, 1994.”

Fraser Twp. v. Linwood-Bay Sportsman's Club, 715 N.W.2d 89 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “10 MCL 691.1542(1) and (2). 11 MCL 691.1542a.”

Addison Twp. v. Barnhart, 845 N.W.2d 88 (Mich. 2014). “At issue in this case is the protection against local ordinances established for shooting ranges under MCL 691.”

Cheboygan Sportsman Club v. Cheboygan Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “1542, such ranges are immune to “civil liability or criminal prosecution in any matter relating to noise or noise pollution,” “an action for nuisance,” and an injunction against “the use or operation of a range on the basis of noise or noise pollution,” if those ranges had been…”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1542(1) — 2 cases

Cheboygan Sportsman Club v. Cheboygan Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney, 858 N.W.2d 751 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “1542, such ranges are immune to “civil liability or criminal prosecution in any matter relating to noise or noise pollution,” “an action for nuisance,” and an injunction against “the use or operation of a range on the basis of noise or noise pollution” if those ranges were in…”

Fraser Twp. v. Linwood-Bay Sportsman's Club, 715 N.W.2d 89 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “10 MCL 691.1542(1) and (2). 11 MCL 691.1542a.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.