Carrying a pistol in a vehicle without a concealed pistol license (CPL); MCL 750.227(2); As-applied Second Amendment challenge; Whether Michigan’s statutory scheme for issuing CPLs is constitutionally permissible; People v Langston

Holding that “applying MCL 750.227(2) to defendant under the facts of this case passes constitutional muster[,]” the court affirmed his conviction of carrying a pistol in a vehicle without a CPL. Defendant contended that Langston did not resolve his appeal because he was not bringing a facial challenge to the statute. He argued “that, as applied to him, MCL 750.227(2) unconstitutionally burdens his Second Amendment rights because he attempted to transport his firearm safely, and there is no evidence that defendant was dangerous.” But the court concluded that his “argument misunderstands the burden that MCL 750.227(2) placed on [his] Second Amendment rights. MCL 750.227(2) is not an outright ban on transporting pistols in vehicles—instead, as applied to defendant, the statute merely required him to obtain a valid CPL before doing so.” Thus, it followed that the burden the statute placed on his “Second Amendment rights was requiring him to obtain a valid CPL. That this is the burden that MCL 750.227 places on individuals’ Second Amendment rights is supported by Langston, where this Court held that MCL 750.227 is facially constitutional because ‘Michigan’s statutory scheme for issuing concealed pistol licenses’ is constitutionally permissible.” The court noted that he did “not contend that he faced any obstacle—constitutionally relevant or otherwise—to renewing his CPL. Indeed, he all but admits that his CPL would have been renewed had he simply requested it.”