Challenge to the constitutionality of Michigan’s felon in possession (FIP) statute; MCL 750.224f; People v. Green; People v. Parker; Presumption of constitutionality; People v. Sadows; Claim that a legislative enactment is unconstitutional on its face; People v. Wilder; The right to bear arms; U.S. Const. amend. II; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 6; People v. Yanna; McDonald v. City of Chicago; District of Columbia v. Heller; United States v. Smoot (4th Cir.); United States v. Khami (6th Cir.); Principle that the right to bear arms is not unlimited; People v. Powell; People v. Deroche; People v. Wilder; People v. Swint; Principle that common law self-defense is a valid defense to a charge of FIP; People v. Dupree; Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW)

The court held that Michigan’s FIP statute is constitutional on its face under both the federal and state constitutions. The defendant was convicted of FIP, CCW, and felony-firearm, second offense. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that Michigan’s FIP statute is unconstitutional on its face under both the federal and state constitutions because it deprives an individual of the right to possess firearms for any purpose, including self-defense. First, it found that, “[i]n light of the rationale stated in Swint and the decision in Heller, there are clearly circumstances in which MCL 750.224f is constitutionally valid under the Second Amendment.” Thus, the court followed the dicta in Heller and concluded, in conformity with Swint, that Michigan’s FIP statute does not violate the Second Amendment. Second, it found that Dupree did not address the constitutionality of the FIP statute and is “factually distinguishable because, here, defendant was not actively defending himself from an attacker but was merely carrying the firearm for some hypothetical future need of self-defense.” Thus, it held that the statute is also constitutionally valid under the Michigan Constitution. Affirmed.