Whether a rideshare vehicle is a “place of business” for purposes of MCL 750.227(2); People v Brooks; Vagueness; Concealed pistol license (CPL)

Holding that the “place of business” exception in MCL 750.227(2) is not unconstitutionally vague, and there was no constitutional violation, the court affirmed defendant’s CCW conviction. Police conducted a 4:30 am welfare check at a gas station where defendant was sleeping inside his vehicle in the parking lot. During a brief exchange, he said there were two guns in the vehicle and that he had no CPL. Officers verified the lack of a CPL, arrested him for CCW, and recovered two loaded pistols. The trial court rejected the statutory defense that a rideshare vehicle is a “place of business.” On appeal, the court held that longstanding caselaw limits “place of business” to fixed locations on land, citing Brooks. “The words ‘other land possessed by him’ which immediately follow the words ‘place of business’ compel the view that the place of business referred to is land.” The court also held that defendant’s void-for-vagueness challenge failed because a “statute is sufficiently definite if its meaning can be fairly ascertained by reference to judicial interpretations,” and the phrase has been consistently construed for decades. The court concluded defendant “failed to show in this case that MCL 750.227 did ‘not provide fair notice of the conduct proscribed’ or was ‘so indefinite that it invites arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.’”