Possession of metallic knuckles (MCL 750.224(1)(d)); Right to keep & bear arms for self-defense; Facial constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment & Const 1963, art 1, § 6; New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc v Bruen; District of Columbia v Heller; “Common use” consideration; Wade v University of MI (On Remand); A “dangerous & unusual” weapon; Historical use & regulation of metallic knuckles

The court rejected defendant’s facial challenge to the constitutionality of the statute prohibiting possession of metallic knuckles (MCL 750.224(1)(d)), holding that “there is an application of the statute that is constitutional under the Second Amendment[.]” Specifically, the ban “falls within the historical tradition of prohibiting the concealed carry of metallic knuckles as a dangerous and unusual weapon.” Thus, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge. Applying the Bruen test, it first considered whether metallic knuckles are covered by the Second Amendment. It noted that “protected ‘arms’ include only those weapons commonly used and possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” It further noted there is no consensus on whether “this ‘common use’ consideration” should be addressed during Bruen’s first or second step. The court concluded that it “is best considered under step one, as it is at that point that the challenger must prove that the arm at issue is facially covered by the Amendment.” The court inferred “that because a small minority of states do not regulate the possession and use of metallic knuckles, they are commonly used for lawful purposes.” Thus, it held “that defendant’s conduct of bearing [them] was an activity covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and therefore is presumptively constitutionally protected conduct.” Turning to Bruen step two, the court considered “how metallic knuckles were historically treated,” and determined “that from approximately 1845 and onward [they] were associated not with law-abiding citizens who sought to use the weapon for self-defense, but with criminals and aggressors, and were considered by the courts and legislatures of the mid-to-late nineteenth century as dangerous and unusual. And, these mid-to-late nineteenth century laws and decisions are a more specific articulation of colonial period laws that banned the public carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” The court noted that it was not “pointed to, nor have we found, any statutes or caselaw that consider metallic knuckles as anything other than dangerous and unusual, and as a weapon not possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” It found that the various “laws and the decisions interpreting them set out a guiding historic principle that appears uniform amongst a majority of States: brass knuckles are dangerous and unusual weapons that have not, from 1791 through the post-Civil War era, played a role in the defense of self or others.”