42 USC § 1983 action arising from a weapons seizure; Qualified immunity in a defendant’s individual & official capacity; Takings claims; Procedural & substantive due process claims; Second Amendment claims; New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v Bruen; Fourth Amendment claim; Inverse-condemnation claim under Michigan law; Claim & delivery under Michigan law; MCL 600.2920(1); MCR 3.105(A)(1)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that because plaintiffs-Novak and Wenzel produced affidavits attesting to their ownership of the guns seized, the district court erred by granting defendant-Sheriff Federspiel summary judgment on the federal takings claim against him in his official capacity. Summary judgment was also improperly granted on the Second Amendment claim because “the right to keep or bear one’s own firearms is quintessentially conduct that falls within the text of the Second Amendment.” And they can proceed with their state-law claim-and-delivery action. They alleged they endured a “taking” where Federspiel refused to return guns he had confiscated from a cabin where a domestic violence incident occurred. Plaintiffs were not involved in that incident. They asserted that they owned the guns seized but admitted that they lack documents establishing their ownership. The district court granted Federspiel summary judgment on all claims. The court held that he was entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs’ takings claim in his individual capacity but vacated the grant of qualified immunity in his official capacity. It held that plaintiffs’ affidavits stating that they owned the firearms created “a genuine issue of material fact as to” ownership. But they did “not put that fact beyond dispute, and Novak’s and Wenzel’s credibility is for a factfinder to evaluate.” The court upheld summary judgment on the procedural and substantive due process claims, concluding among other things that “the circumstances surrounding the firearms’ initial seizure did not require pre-deprivation process. In investigating the allegation of domestic assault against” nonparty-H that led to the seizure of the guns, “law enforcement needed to act quickly to preserve evidence and safeguard the victim and her infant child.” As to the Second Amendment claims against the Federspiel in his official capacity, the issue was whether the “right to own guns includes the right to possess—that is to ‘keep’—the guns that a person lawfully owns. The right to keep or bear firearms would mean little if an individual lacked any presumptive right to keep or bear his own firearms.” Thus, the case must be remanded to determine whether plaintiffs “owned” the guns and if so, “whether Federspiel’s possession of them has been ‘consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’” The Fourth Amendment claim failed because that Amendment “does not apply to retaining property[.]” As to the Michigan claim and delivery claim, a “reasonable jury could find that [plaintiffs] own the firearms at issue and that Federspiel has unlawfully kept those firearms after [they] requested their return.” Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.