Controlled Substance Collateral Consequences If Convicted

When it comes to controlled substance (or drug) charges here in the State of Michigan, the legislature has drafted a strict set of consequences to inflict onto those convicted of these various types of crimes. Controlled Substance Collateral Consequences are not limited to fines, but can include: possible jail time, possible drivers’ license sanctions, and other requirements when convicted of a drug crime. There are also possible controlled substance collateral consequences that can involve an individual’s career, financial aid or other areas of an individual’s life.

The following areas involve possible controlled substance collateral consequences, and each provides a brief outline of those consequences.

Employment

Health professionals: Relevant Authority: MCL §333.16221(b); Mich. Admin. Code R. 338.3145. A summary suspension of the license will occur if an individual is convicted of a misdemeanor controlled substance crimes involving delivery, possession or use. Individuals previously convicted of a controlled substance crime and currently under a sentence for that conviction cannot work as pharmacists or in related jobs. Moreover, an individual’s controlled substance license would be invalid if suspended, revoked or denied because of a drug crime conviction.

Long-Term Care (adult foster care facilities, nursing homes, hospices, etc.): Relevant Authority: 42 USC 1320a-7; MCL § 330.1134a, MCL § 333.20173a, MCL § 333.20173b. If an individual is convicted of a felony relating to manufacturing, distributing, prescribing, or dispensing of a controlled substance after August 21, 1996, then a lifetime ban in the field will attach to that individual. An individual is banned for five years after the conviction for certain misdemeanor controlled substance offenses, which are listed in the statute, and involve the creation, delivery, possession, or use of a controlled substance. An individual under the age of 18 generally receives a one-year suspension from the date of conviction for most misdemeanor controlled substance offenses.

Private Security, Security Guard, Security Alarm Contractor: Relevant Authority: MCL § 338.1056(1)(e), MCL § 338.1060(1)(c), MCL § 338.1067. An individual is not allowed to have a conviction involving a controlled substance within the last five years, which includes felonies and/or misdemeanors. Therefore, a 5-year gap rule applies.

Federal student loans: Relevant Authority: 20 USC 1091(r)(1) IRC 25A(b)(2)(D). The Federal law suspends an individual’s eligibility for any grants, loans, or work assistance when he or she is convicted (either by state or federal) of a controlled substance that involves the possession or sale of a controlled substance and while receiving student aid. Furthermore, Federal law denies the hope tax credit to a student and his or her family if he or she has a prior felony drug conviction. In possession cases, the period of suspension begins on the date of conviction and will last one-year. There is an enhanced suspension of two years for a second possession offense and complete revocation for a third offense. A delivery drug conviction brings about a two-year suspension for the first conviction and complete revocation for a second conviction. However, there are waiver or rehabilitation provisions that are available to some individuals.

Housing

Private landlords: Private landlords may evict an individual for criminal activity related to the tenancy, which is common in drug cases. Furthermore, private landlords may also deny housing because of a criminal record. A lease or agreement between two individuals is a contract, and thus the terms in that contract are binding, which usually involves provisions about drug activity, use or the like.

Conventional public housing and section 8 subsidies: Admission to programs: Relevant Authority: 24 CFR Subpart B – Admission

There is a mandatory denial of housing for individuals convicted of methamphetamine production. There is a presumption for denial is an individual has been convicted of a drug crime, which includes a family member engaging in illegal drug use. Moreover, there is a discretionary denial for any drug-related criminal activity, and thus an applicant may be required to exclude a family member who has participated in or has been culpable for criminal, alcohol, or drug-related activity.

Termination or eviction: Relevant Authority: 42 USC 1437d; 24 CFR 966.4

Mandatory termination is required for individuals convicted of methamphetamine production. However, there is discretionary termination for individuals engaged in illegal drug use. Discretionary termination is present when a tenant, a member of the tenant’s household, or a guest engages in any drug-related criminal activity on or off the premises or if any other person under the tenant’s control engages in any drug-related activity on the premises. Public Housing Authorities have the authority to evict individuals for drug-related criminal activity even if the tenant did not know, could not foresee, or could not control the behavior of other occupants or guests.

Public benefits:

Relevant Authority: 21 USC 862a BEM 203

Permanent revocation for an individual convicted of a drug-related felony, and thus he or she cannot receive federal cash assistance or food stamps during his or her lifetime. States are allowed to opt into or out-of that provision. In Michigan, individuals with one prior felony drug conviction will remain eligible for benefits; however, those with more than one felony drug conviction, which occurred after 1996, are not. However certain benefits will be excluded from the ban, which include, but are not limited to, emergency medical services, certain public health benefits, drug treatment programs, Medicaid, Social Security disability, and supplemental Social Security income. If considering moving to another state and having prior felony drug convictions research is advised because other states do enforce the ban described above.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

 

Criminal Sexual Conduct Crimes – Consequences For Pleading Guilty.

If you pled guilty or no contest to a “listed” criminal sexual conduct crime as defined in MCL 28.722 or an offense that by its nature constitutes a sexual offense against an individual who is less than 18 years of age, or if you were previously convicted of what was or is now a listed offense for which you were not then required to register, but are now convicted of any felony (see MCL 28.722(b)(ii)(B), MCL 28.724(5)), you can be required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA).

If, for any reason, you are required to register under the SORA, your plea of guilty or no contest could result in a termination of your parental rights (even if it is unrelated to this case) and will restrict where you can live, work, and go to school.

If you are convicted and sentenced to prison for criminal sexual conduct crime (CSC), first degree, or under MCL 750.520b or MCL 750.520c for a criminal sexual conduct crime committed by an individual 17 years or older against an individual less than 13 years of age, on release from prison you will thereafter be subject to lifetime electronic monitoring. Criminal sexual conduct crimes are life changing if an individual is convicted of such a thing, and thus it is imperative to contact a criminal defense attorney whenever you are or believe you will be charged.

You must remember that you never have to accept or take a plea agreement. You have the absolute right to maintain your innocence until the state or the prosecutor has proven that you have committed the crime(s) charged beyond all reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers.

Contact Josh Jones today to make sure that you case is handled with professionalism, eagerness and intellect. He always has your back.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECTUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Novice Drivers Cellphone Ban Known As: Kelsey’s Law

Under MCL 257.320a there is a cellphone ban for all novice drivers, also known as Kelsey’s Law. Those individuals holding a level I or level II drivers license are be unable to use a cellphone while operating a vehicle, hence a cellphone ban for novice drivers under Kelsey’s law.

These types of licenses already maintain restrictions on an individual either requiring them to have a parent or guardian with them while driving (level I) or only being able to drive during certain hours or the day and with a certain amount of individuals inside the vehicle (level II). The violation will be rendered in the form of a civil infraction that is to be then determined by the municipality.

There are apparently going to be exceptions to the new law, which will allow drivers to use hands-free calling. These exceptions will be found in vehicles having wireless phone capabilities. This new law goes hand-in-hand with the no texting while driving law that was put into place not long ago. This cellphone ban, however, will restrict young drivers falling within the age and driving regulations targeted by Kelsey’s law.

The general purpose of the law is to protect others on the roadways. Everyone has to admit that cellphones in general are distraction, no matter who and when you are using it.

It is always smart and essential to know the laws that apply to you, your family, and your friends. The smallest ticket can impact your license and ability to drive. This is said because an accumulation of points can create a revoked license. Moreover, obtaining infractions when having a low-level drivers license can increase the length of time the individual has such a license.

Contact Josh Jones today to handle all your traffic related legal questions, concerns and issues.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. WE HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

 

Self Defense Inside Your Home

What Is Self-Defense Inside The Home

The Michigan Criminal Jury Instruction explains that:

A person is never required to retreat if attacked in his or her own home, nor if the person reasonably believes that an attacker is about to use a deadly weapon, nor if the person is subject to a sudden, fierce, and violent attack. Therefore, an individual is allowed to use self defense in certain circumstances.

Further, a person is not required to retreat, and thus use self defense, if the person:

  1. has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time the deadly force is used, and
  2. has a legal right to be where the person is at that time, and
  3. has an honest and reasonable belief that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of the person or another.

Therefore, and generally speaking, “[a] person can use deadly force in self defense only where it is necessary to do so. Further, [i]f the defendant could have safely retreated but did not do so, [the jury] may consider that fact in deciding whether the defendant honestly and reasonably believed he or she needed to use deadly force in self defense.” However, it should be noted that this part of the jury instruction (yes it is part of the Michigan Jury Instructions) will not be used if the issue of self defense is not in dispute. See People v Williams for a full explanation on that particular issue.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

When An Officer Touches You, Is It A Search?

Court’s have determined that a physical intrusion to obtain information may be a Constitutional Violation, which was shown when the United States Supreme Court determined that a violation occurred when the government attached a GPS device to an individual’s vehicle. See United States v Jones. The intrusion went beyond the expectation of privacy in a reasonable person analysis.

The basic idea of whether a police officer is able to search is based upon the circumstances of any given case. Courts have reasoned that because vehicles are able to move quickly, and thus warrants are not ideal when crimes or potential crimes involve vehicles. Police officers are able to conduct a search only after establishing probable cause of criminal conduct. For example, if the officer smells burnt marijuana he or she can then search the passenger compartment of the vehicle. However, the officer is limited to that area and cannot then search the trunk if he or she comes up missing, meaning no narcotics or other contraband is found.

The same above conduct would also apply to individual persons within the vehicle. If there is probable cause to search the vehicle then search the individuals found inside the car will not violate constitutional muster.

Another opportunity for a warrantless search to occur is when the officer arrests an individual. Once an arrest occurs or could have occurred a search of the vehicle or person is not improper nor will it violate the constitutional rights of the individual. As just mentioned, if the officer is allowed to arrest but does not arrest an individual, per his or her discretion, the officer can search a vehicle or person.

Moreover, the individual arrested will does not necessarily have to be located inside the vehicle for the search to occur. He or she must have been a recent occupant of the vehicle in order for a warrantless vehicle search to occur. The recent occupant must be within reaching distance of the vehicle for this rule to apply.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECTUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Failure to Answer Citation, Appear in Court, or Comply With an Order or Judgment

MCL 257.321a(1) states:

Many individuals do not know this, but when someone fails to pay a traffic ticket or fail to appear in court or comply with a court order or judgment specific matters their Michigan Driver’s License will be in jeopardy. The reason for this is MCL 257.321a(1), which states that

Failure to answer citation, “or a notice to appear in court for a violation reportable to the secretary of state under MCL 257.732 or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to a violation of a law of this state reportable to the secretary of state under MCL 257.732, or for any matter pending, or who fails to comply with an order or judgment of the court, including, but not limited to, paying all fines, costs, fees, and assessments, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both. A violation of this subsection or failure to answer a citation or notice to appear for a violation of section 33b(1) of former 1933 (Ex Sess) PA 8, section 703(1) of the Michigan liquor control code of 1998, 1998 PA 58, MCL 436.1703, or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to either of those sections shall not be considered a violation for any purpose under [MCL 257.320a].”

Elements of the Offense

This statute establishes one misdemeanor offense that can be committed two ways:

(1) Defendant failed to answer a citation or notice to appear for an offense reportable to the Secretary of State under MCL 257.732, or for any matter pending; or

(2) Defendant failed to comply with an order or judgment of the court, including but not limited to paying all fines, costs, fees, and assessments.

These offenses are commonly referred to as failure to answer citation (or appear) in court (FAC) and failure to comply with judgment (FCJ).

Criminal Penalties

MCL 257.321a(1) provides for:
imprisonment for not more than 93 days; or fine of not more than $100.00; or
both.

Licensing Sanctions

In addition to misdemeanor penalties, license suspension can result from a person’s failure to answer a citation or notice to appear in court or failure to comply with a judgment. Under MCL 257.321a(2)–(4), the court is required to notify the person that license suspension may result from his or her inaction. If the person does not appear or comply with the court’s order or judgment within a stated time after receiving notice from the court, the court must report this failure to the Secretary of State. Upon receipt of the report from the court, the Secretary of State is to immediately suspend the person’s license. The time requirements contained in the court’s notices differ depending upon the charges brought against the person.

MCL 257.321a(2)

In cases involving offenses other than certain drunk driving and alcohol‐related crimes,17 the notice from the court must be mailed to the person’s last known address at least 28 days after the person fails to appear or comply with an order or judgment. The notice shall state that the person’s license will be suspended if he or she fails to appear or to comply with the court’s order or judgment within 14 days of issuance of the notice. If the person fails to comply with this notice, the court must notify the Secretary of State within 14 days. The Secretary of State will then immediately suspend the person’s license and notify the person by regular mail sent to the person’s last known address. MCL 257.321a(2).

MCL 257.321a(5) requires that a license suspension imposed under §321a(2) shall remain in effect until both of the following occur:

The court informs the Secretary of State that the defendant has appeared before the court and all matters relating to the violation are resolved; and

The defendant has paid to the court a $45.00 driver’s license clearance fee for each failure to appear or failure to comply with a court order.

In cases involving parking violations, the court may give the defendant notice and ten days to appear if the defendant fails to answer two or more handicap parking violation notices or citations, or six or more parking violation notices or citations. If the defendant fails to appear or comply within ten days, the Secretary of State shall not issue or renew a driver’s license to the defendant until the defendant resolves all outstanding matters and pays to the court a $45.00 driver’s license clearance fee. MCL 257.321a(7)–(8).

The last line of MCL 257.321a(1) says, “A violation of this subsection shall not be considered a violation for any purpose under section 320a.” Therefore, no points will be assessed on defendant’s driving record.

Issues

When the defendant has appeared before the court, and all matters relating to the violation or to the noncompliance are resolved, and the defendant has paid to the court the $45.00 driver’s license clearance fee, the court shall give to the defendant a copy of the information being sent to the Secretary of State. Upon showing that copy, a person shall not be arrested or issued a citation for driving on a suspended license on the basis of any matter resolved, even if the information sent to the Secretary of State has not been received or recorded. MCL 257.321a(10).

Whenever you are facing a failure to answer citation or to appear in court or for failing to follow a judgement or order, it is essential to obtain an attorney who understands the ramifications and obstacles that are involved with such an issue. Make sure to contact an attorney immediately whenever cited or charged with a traffic violation or misdemeanor.

DRIVERS LICENSE RESTORATION – DRUNK DRIVING

There are two parts to the process when applying to reinstate your Michigan Driving Privileges. The first process is the paperwork followed by a hearing that will either take place at a branch office in front of an attorney for the state or by videoconference at the branch office with a state attorney.

It is important to note that the entire process takes a minimum of 3 months or longer. Once the paperwork is completed and sent to the state in Lansing it takes minimum 8 weeks before your hearing date is scheduled.

STANDARDS for Issuance of a License

The Secretary of state has issued a detailed set of standards that must be met for a repeat Drunk Driver to receive a restricted license. This includes drivers with drug driving offenses or a combination of alcohol and drugs.

Rule 13(1)(a)-(b) states: The hearing officer shall not order that a license be issued unless you prove by clear and convincing evidence all of the following:

(1) That your alcohol or substance abuse problems, if any, are under control and likely to remain under control.

(2) That your risk of repeating past abusive behavior is a low or minimal risk.

(3) That the risk of you repeating the act of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by, or under the influence of alcohol or controlled substances or a combination of alcohol or controlled substance is a low or minimal risk.

(4) That you have the ability and motivation to drive safely and within the law.


(5) And other relevant issues contained in the rule and statue.

Its is imperative, if not essential to make sure that your hearing goes smoothly and is effective in obtaining your restricted license. Losing at a reinstatement hearing takes another year of you not having a license. Do the right thing and lawyer-up.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc.

If you or someone you know needs to have their driving privilege’s reinstated than you need to contact Michigan Drivers Restoration Lawyer Josh Jones today for your free consultation—7-days a week by phone, text, email or instant message.

People v Hartwick & People v Tuttle – Defining The MMMA

At the end July 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) issues a written opinion in two different cases, known as People v Hartwick and People v Tuttle. This opinion provides a specific and detail analysis of what is required by an individual wanting to present an Immunity defense, under § 4 of the MMMA, and an Affirmative defense, under § 8 of the MMMA.

Essentially, the Court in People v Hartwick answered multiple questions dealing with both defenses found under the MMMA. One primary issue that the court considered was what the burden of proof the defendant has when presenting a defense under § 4 or § 8. The MMMA was silent on the burden of proof required to substantiate either defense, and inevitably the Court determined that under both defense a preponderance of the evidence standard would be followed. In general terms, a preponderance of the evidence burden standard can be compared to a balancing of scales: if the defendant show by 51% that he has substantiated the elements under either defense he or she would have satisfied his or her burden for that particular defense.

Another interesting determination in People v Hartwick was in regards to § 4 and where the Court explained that a claim for immunity will not be considered a catch-all type of rule. What this means is that an individual who may have conduct that is illegal or outside the confines of § 4 will not be precluded from using the immunity defense on all conduct that is being alleged against him. Essentially, what this means is that a court must apply the immunity defense independently to each individual charge that a defendant faces. This is very unique for MMMA cases, but it is also complex.

The largest impact or defining moment within People v Hartwick is the holding the Court made on § 8. The Court explained that an individual who possesses a valid Michigan Medical Marihuana card does not automatically, or presumptively, meet the first element of a § 8 defense. This means that an individual defendant wanting to provide a defense under § 8 of the MMMA must provide specific evidence establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that “[a] physician has stated that, in the physician’s professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient’s medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition.” People v Hartwick.

The Court in People v Hartwick took this a step further and explained that an individual caregiver wanting to rely on a § 8 defense must substantiate certain and specific facts regarding the patient that he or she is assisting. Specifically, the caregiver would need to establish the same facts as a patient presenting the § 8 defense for him or herself. These facts would include but are not limited to the amount of marihuana needed or required to treat the patient’s medical condition or establishing that the patient has satisfied the bona-fide physician/patient relationship.

The MSC in People v Hartwick, at the end of the day, provided guidance on what is needed in order to establish the defense found within the MMMA; however, the evidentiary requirements under § 8 have been narrowed. This narrowing in the interpretation of the MMMA will require individuals looking to maintain a § 8 defense to maintain specific information and explanation in regards to his or her medical use of marihuana. This ideal applies to both caregivers and patients.

Contact your Michigan Marihuana Lawyer today, so you can continue to smoke carefree.

DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON.

Michigan Marihuana Caregiver Qualifications

Here in the State of Michigan there are certain requirements and criminal charges that can and will extend from specific violations of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (aka MMMA). Legislation found in the MMMA that became effective April 1, 2013 chances the landscape the individuals under the MMMA, specifically MMMA caregivers.

One of the biggest and having the most impact on the MMMA caregivers (and the MMMA community in general) has be the change in the definition of the term caregiver. In essence the change in the MMMA caregiver definition made those who currently have felony convictions on their records unable to obtain such a certification or license to be a caregiver. This means fewer individual will be unable to become MMMA caregivers.

This limit or restriction only applies to the past ten (10) years. However, the new definition does require an individual to remain free of felony drug convictions and assaultive convictions for their lifetime, or in other words the 10-year rule does not apply if an individual has been convicted of such a crime. Therefore, a MMMA caregiver must not only be 21 years or older but maintain a criminal record free of felonies within the last 10 years, unless it is a drug or assaultive conviction as designated by the MMMA.

This is important information for those individual who want to become MMMA caregivers. These and other new amendments can and will affect the medical marijuana community. Make sure you know what you can and cannot due with your certification to use marijuana. It could keep you out of jail and allowing you to continue to blow smoke. Josh Jones has your back 7-days a week and is your Michigan Marihuana Lawyer.

PLEASE DO NOT RELY ON THESE LEGAL OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS WHEN REPRESENTING YOURSELF IN COURT. THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT MEANT TO COMPENSATE OR EFFECUATE LEGAL REPRESENTATION. YOU SHOULD AND MUST CONTACT AN ATTORNEY AND DISCUSS WITH HIM OR HER THE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY AND ALL IDEAS, STATEMENTS, OPINIONS, EXPRESSIONS OR OTHERWISE STATED ON THIS SITE. WE HOPE TO SPEAK WITH YOU SOON. 

Michigan Court of Appeals Expands 2nd Amendment in People v Yanna

In People v Yanna, the Michigan Court of Appeals expanded the Second Amendment to include the use of tasers and stun-guns by private individuals. See People v Yanna. This determination rendered MCL 750.224a unconstitutional, which prohibited the use or possession of such a weapon by private citizens.

The issue regarding the Second Amendment was raised in trial, by a motion to dismiss, explaining that individuals had a right to “bear” stun-guns because it would qualify under the term “arms.” The Court of Appeals explained that the Second Amendment encapsulates all versions of “arms,” including those not forged at the time of its enactment.

However, there are two exceptions to the general rule, which includes those weapons not typically possessed by “law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” and a prohibition on carrying “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

In the end, the court determined that stun-guns do not fit within any of the Second Amendment exceptions and held that a complete ban on that specific weapon is unconstitutional. Further, the court explained that citizens had a right to openly carry the weapon here in the State of Michigan. This holding stemmed from multiple sources, including Dist. of Columbia v Heller, the Second Amendment (allowing the right to “carry” and “keep” arms), and the Michigan Constitution (allowing the right to “bear” arms for self-defense).

PLEASE DO NOT RELY upon any of the information contained in this article when trying to represent yourself. You should always consult with an attorney before relying upon any written advice, article, blog etc.