6.2Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Under Const 1963, art 1, § 6, “[e]very person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.” See also US Const, Am II, which is “‘fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.’” People v Deroche, 299 Mich App 301, 305 (2013), quoting People v Yanna, 297 Mich App 137, 142 (2012). “[A]n ‘arm’ is any weapon used for offense or self-defense[.]” People v Dummer, ___ Mich App ___, ___ (2025), citing DC v Heller, 554 US 570, 581 (2008).1
The “right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” is an individual constitutional right, but it is not unlimited. Heller, 554 US at 592, 595. A firearm regulation “is lawful under the Second Amendment” if it fits within our “historical tradition of firearm regulation[.]’” United States v Rahimi, 602 US ___, ___ (2024), quoting New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc v Bruen, 597 US 1, 17 (2022). “Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.” Rahimi, 602 US at ___ (quotation marks and citation omitted).
For instance, “the constitutional right to bear arms contained in Const 1963, art 1, § 6, does not guarantee [a] defendant the right to possess a firearm after defendant is convicted of a felony.” People v Swint, 225 Mich App 353, 363, 375 (1997) (“defendant’s right to bear arms under Const 1963, art 1, § 6[,] is not absolute and is subject to the reasonable limitations set forth in MCL 750.224f [felon-in-possession statute, which criminalizes possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon] as part of the state’s police power”).2 And while “the government cannot justify infringing on defendant’s Second Amendment right to possess a handgun in his home simply because defendant was intoxicated in the general vicinity of the firearm,” Deroche, 299 Mich App at 312, “Heller never established a categorical rule that the Constitution prohibits regulations that forbid firearm possession in the home.” Rahimi, 602 US at ___. “In fact, our opinion stated that many such prohibitions, like those on the possession of firearms by ‘felons and the mentally ill,’ are ‘presumptively lawful.’” Id. at ___, quoting Heller, 554 US at 626, 627 n 26.
1 Defendant in Dummer challenged the constitutionality of Michigan’s statute prohibiting the possession of metallic (“brass”) knuckles, MCL 750.224(1)(d), under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, US Const Am II, and Article 1, § 6 of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 6. Dummer, ___ Mich App at ___. Applying the two-part test set forth in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc v Bruen, 597 US 1, 17, 24 (2022), to analyze the constitutionality of government arms regulations the Dummer Court held that defendant’s possession of brass knuckles was presumptively protected conduct under the Second Amendment, but that brass knuckles were historically considered “dangerous and unusual weapons that were not used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, and therefore were subject to regulation.” Id. at ___. According to the Dummer Court, the laws from other jurisdictions “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.” Id. at ___.
2 “This Court has found that ‘the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms is subject to a reasonable exercise of the police power.’” Swift, 225 Mich App at 363, quoting Bay Co Concealed Weapons Licensing Bd v Gasta, 96 Mich App 784, 788 (1980).