Plea validity; Facial challenge to the constitutionality of the FIP statute (MCL 750.224f) & CCW statute (MCL 750.227(2)); People v Hughes; People v Langston; New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc v Bruen; Unpreserved constitutional error claim; Plain error review

Noting that defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of MCL 750.224f was considered and rejected in Hughes, and that his similar challenge to MCL 750.227(2) was rejected in Langston, the court affirmed his convictions. He was convicted of FIP, FIP of ammunition, and CCW after shooting and killing someone in self-defense. As an initial matter, the court rejected his assertion that his unpreserved error claims should be reviewed de novo. He “did not object to the constitutionality of either statute before this appeal.” The court reviews an unpreserved claim of constitutional error “for plain error affecting substantial rights.” Most of his argument as to MCL 750.224 centered on the federal FIP statute and federal court cases interpreting it. He did “not cite any binding authority to support his argument and” ignored Michigan case law that has “already determined that MCL 750.224f is constitutional.” The court noted that in Hughes, it “held that ‘MCL 750.224f’s restrictions are consistent with the Nation’s historical precedent of regulating firearm possession by persons convicted of felonies, and defendant’s facial challenge regarding the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute fails.’” Hughes is binding precedent. The court found that defendant “abandoned his challenge to his CCW conviction because he failed to cite any authority to support an argument that statutes banning the carrying of a concealed weapon are unconstitutional under Bruen’s historical tradition framework.” In any event, the court “rejected the same argument in Langston,” which was binding precedent.