FIP under MCL 750.224f(1)(a); People v Hughes; Facial & as-applied Second Amendment challenge; New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc v Bruen & United States v Rahimi; Felony-firearm; Dismissal of related charge; MCL 750.227b

The court held that the trial court erred by dismissing the FIP and felony-firearm charges because MCL 750.224f(1)(a)’s requirement that a felon pay all fines before firearm rights are restored does not facially or as applied violate the Second Amendment. Defendant had prior felony convictions from 2015, initially received youthful trainee status, lost that status after a probation violation, and in 2024 was charged with FIP and felony-firearm after allegedly shooting his sister in the hand. The trial court dismissed those two charges after concluding that the statute was unconstitutional because it tied firearm rights restoration to unpaid fines. On appeal, the court held that the constitutional challenge failed because the statute “does not prohibit firearm possession for persons who have not paid fines; rather, it withholds restoration of rights until three years after” the person has paid fines, completed imprisonment, and successfully completed probation or parole. The court next held that Hughes controlled because Michigan may constitutionally restrict firearm possession by felons, including nonviolent felons, and that if the state may “permissibly prohibit a nonviolent felon from possessing a firearm forever, it is logically permissible to impose a requirement for restoration of rights[.]” The court further reasoned that it “is a privilege for a felon to have their right to possess a firearm reinstated” and that it is “reasonable for a felon to have to prove that they are rehabilitated, have paid their debt to society, and are worthy of the privilege” before regaining firearm rights. Because the trial court wrongly dismissed the FIP count, it also wrongly dismissed the related felony-firearm count. Reversed and remanded.