Constitutionality of MCL 750.231a; Vagueness challenge; Whether a statute gives fair notice; People v Noble; “Readily accessible”; CCW in a vehicle; MCL 750.227(2); People v Nimeth; “Carrying”; People v Barbee; Constructive possession; People v Johnson; Constitutionality of MCL 750.227(2); New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc v Bruen; People v Langston; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to raise a futile objection; Concealed pistol license (CPL)

The court rejected defendant’s constitutional challenges to MCL 750.231a & MCL 750.227(2). He was convicted of CCW in a vehicle and sentenced to 150 days in jail and 2 years of probation. After his release, he moved the trial court for post-conviction relief or a new trial, arguing that MCL 750.227(2) was unconstitutional under Bruen. The trial court denied his motion. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that “the language of the exemption to MCL 750.227(2) found in MCL 750.231a is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that MCL 750.227(2) is itself unconstitutional under the Second Amendment . . . and Bruen.” It disagreed with defendant’s claim that “the phrase ‘readily accessible’ in MCL 750.231a fails to provide fair notice to the public of the proscribed conduct and gives the jury unlimited discretion to determine if an offense has been committed.” The prosecution “was already required to prove that defendant had actual or constructive possession of a pistol in a vehicle in order to sustain a conviction for CCW in a vehicle; the exemption found in MCL 750.231a merely provides guidance on how to transport a pistol without being found to have constructively possessed it in violation of MCL 750.227(2). Persons of ordinary intelligence can discern when an item is or is not readily accessible by the occupant of a vehicle; accordingly, the phrase in question is not unconstitutionally vague.” The court also disagreed with defendant’s contention that MCL 750.227(2) is itself unconstitutional and that his defense counsel was ineffective for not raising that issue under Bruen, noting it is bound by established precedent. “Defendant argues that the very requirement of a CPL runs afoul of the Second Amendment and Bruen. The same argument was made, and rejected, in . . . Langston, where this Court explicitly ruled that ‘the requirement of MCL 750.227 that a person must possess a valid CPL in order to carry a pistol in an automobile does not violate the Second Amendment.’ We are bound to follow Langston.” As such, defendant did not establish “that MCL 750.227(2) is unconstitutional, and defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise this issue.” Affirmed.