Know Your Rights

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Jul 5, 2024 | Know Your Rights, Michigan News, News, Your Rights

Facial Recognition

How Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests

Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the potential pitfalls of this technology and its impact on individuals’ rights.

The Robert Williams Case in Detroit

In 2020, Robert Williams, a Detroit resident, experienced firsthand the flaws of facial recognition technology. Falsely identified as a theft suspect, Williams was wrongfully arrested by the Detroit Police Department. His case marked the first publicized instance in the United States where facial recognition led to an erroneous arrest

The city of Detroit has agreed to compensate him $300,000 for being falsely accused of shoplifting and has committed to revising the use of facial recognition technology by the police to enhance crime-solving efforts.

As per a lawsuit settlement with Robert Williams, his driver’s license photo was mistakenly identified as a potential match to an individual captured on security footage at a Shinola watch store in 2018.

The agreement mandates that Detroit police will evaluate cases involving facial recognition technology from 2017 to 2023. Authorities will promptly notify a prosecutor if an arrest occurs without verifiable evidence.

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Policy Changes and Safeguards

The fallout from Williams’s arrest prompted significant policy changes within the Detroit Police Department:

No Arrests Based Solely on Facial Recognition: Detroit police can no longer make arrests or conduct photo lineups based solely on facial recognition results. Instead, they must combine facial recognition leads with traditional investigative methods to verify suspects’ involvement in a crime.

Enhanced Training: Officers now undergo additional facial recognition training to improve accuracy and responsible use of the technology.

Transparency: The department must disclose when facial recognition technology was used to make an arrest. Additionally, they must acknowledge the technology’s limitations and potential for misidentification.

Civil Liberties: These changes aim to prevent future misidentifications and protect civil liberties. Deputy Chief Franklin Hayes emphasized that facial recognition remains a valuable tool for both solving cases and exonerating innocent individual.

A Concerning Trend

Since then, several other cases of wrongful arrests stemming from facial recognition technology have been uncovered, shedding light on a concerning trend.

Some cities have banned the technology altogether, while others lack comprehensive policies.

In the ever-changing landscape of technological advancements, finding the delicate balance between public safety and individual rights is paramount. The recent Robert Williams case serves as a poignant reminder that safeguarding civil liberties should always be the top priority in the realm of law enforcement technology.

Call Komorn Law

And now for something completely different….

Michigan Law: False Report of Crime

According to MCL Section 750.411a, intentionally making a false report of a crime to law enforcement or emergency services is a crime. Depending on the severity, it can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.

For instance:
False report of a misdemeanor: Up to 93 days in jail or a $500 fine.
False report of a felony: Up to 4 years in prison or a $2,000 fine.
If the false report results in injury or death, the penalties escalate

Recent

Cash For Kids Judge Pardoned (The Kickback Club)

Biden’s commutation for Judge in ‘kids for cash’ scandal should anger the entire universe.Biden’s commutation in ‘kids for cash’ scandal. BY MICHAEL RUBINKAMUpdated 5:32 PM EST, December 13, 2024A judge implicated in one of the most notorious judicial scandals in U.S....

Law and Crime News NOT in the Headlines (Update 12-10-24)

Just When You Thought Your Life Was Bad...Law and Crime NOT in the Headline NewsDive Into The Rabbit Hole Don't Forget Why You Were Here At Komorn Law.Call Us When You Come Out. (248) 357-2550‘Running a brothel’: Judge killed in chambers by sheriff was part of...

Other Articles

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Long Lake Township v. Maxon The Costs Outweigh Benefits in Exclusionary Rule Application and the Slippery Slope of Fourth Amendment ProtectionsThe recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court in Long Lake Township v. Maxon represents a significant shift in the...

Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight

Summary of the Opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. RaimondoIn Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court addressed the enduring precedent set by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which has shaped administrative law for...

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal OffenseCarjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal...

SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

SCOTUS: When police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes it does not necessitate a separate preliminary hearing.The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against two women who loaned their cars to others arrested for drug crimes while using the vehicles, leading...

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

Jul 3, 2024 | Blog, Know Your Rights, Your Rights

Court of Appeals of Michigan

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 368736

Decided: June 27, 2024
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ.

Introduction

In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed an important issue related to search and seizure rights.

Background
Javarian Chandler found himself in legal trouble when he was on probation. As a condition of his probation, he had to comply with certain requirements, including submitting to searches of his person, property, and computer without the need for a search warrant. “Defendant’s Acknowledgment” section found on the SCAO, Form MC 243 (Sept 2022), p. 3:

But was this constitutional?

What Happened?

On May 17, 2023, Chandler was among the probationers and parolees on Officer Thomas’ compliance check list. This marked the first encounter between Officer Thomas and Chandler.

Officer Thomas and three Detroit Police officers visited the house listed on Chandler’s paperwork, owned by Chandler’s cousin. When Chandler’s cousin and mother answered the door, they initially denied Chandler’s presence. However, after Officer Thomas explained that a search was required due to Chandler’s parole, Chandler’s cousin allowed entry.

In Chandler’s room, officers discovered a loaded handgun. Despite being prohibited from owning weapons, Chandler was charged with felon in possession of a firearm, felon in possession of ammunition, and two counts of possession of a firearm during a felony, as a fourth-offense habitual offender. Chandler unsuccessfully sought to suppress the weapon found during the search, leading to an interlocutory appeal following the trial court’s denial of his motion.

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

The Search and Legal Question

The search in question took place in Chandler’s bedroom, conducted by Detroit police officers and a probation agent as part of Chandler’s conditions of probation. The critical issue was whether a warrantless search of a probationer’s property violated the Fourth Amendment.

Did such a search require reasonable suspicion or an express waiver by the probationer?

Chandler’s cousin, who lived in the same house, granted consent for the search. However, defense counsel argued that Chandler’s cousin lacked the authority to authorize the search of Chandler’s bedroom. Additionally, they contended that Chandler’s cousin did not consent freely or voluntarily.

Court’s Ruling

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a warrantless search of a probationer’s property without reasonable suspicion or an express waiver is unconstitutional. In essence, probationers retain Fourth Amendment rights, even while under specific conditions during their probation.

Implications

This decision underscores the delicate balance between law enforcement’s need to monitor probationers and an individual’s right to privacy. By upholding Fourth Amendment protections, the court ensures justice while respecting individual liberties.

Contact Komorn Law

If you have legal questions or need assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out to our experienced attorneys at Komorn Law. You can call us at (248) 357-2550 or visit our website at KomornLaw.com for personalized legal guidance.

Call Komorn Law

And now for something completely different….

Michigan Law: False Report of Crime

Recent

Cash For Kids Judge Pardoned (The Kickback Club)

Law and Crime News NOT in the Headlines (Update 12-10-24)

Other Articles

Government Drones in Your Life – Yes, They Made up a Reason

Supreme Court Opinion – Created federal agencies need judicial oversight

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

SCOTUS: No separate hearing required when police seize cars loaned to drivers accused of drug crimes

Vehicle Forfeiture in Canada – The Process of Taking

May 25, 2024 | Blog, Driving, Know Your Rights, Your Rights

Thank You… and have a nice day eh!

Disclaimer: We are not Attorneys in Canada. This is an article of information obtained from various sources and presented here. We can only assume they are accurate. If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and need a lawyer…we wish you luck. Assume you do not have the rights a Canadian citizen would have and only be given basic human rights.

In Canada, vehicle forfeiture is a legal process that allows the government to permanently take possession of a vehicle. Let’s explore the reasons behind vehicle forfeiture and the steps involved.

Reasons for Vehicle Seizure:

Commission of a Crime:

Law enforcement agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), can seize a vehicle temporarily if it is being used in the commission of a crime or if it serves as evidence of a crime.
Additionally, vehicles may be seized if they are abandoned or driven by someone prohibited from driving.

Violation of Laws or Regulations:

Vehicles can be seized if their owners violate certain laws or regulations. Examples include driving without valid insurance or registration or possessing a learner’s permit without an appropriate accompanying driver.

Vehicle Forfeiture:

Permanent Taking:

Vehicle forfeiture occurs after a legal process, usually when the vehicle was used in a crime or represents proceeds of crime (e.g., drug trafficking, money laundering).
Unlike seizure, forfeiture results in the permanent loss of the vehicle to the government.

Notification and Claim Process:

When a vehicle is seized, the owner is notified of the seizure and provided with information about the reason.
If the vehicle is not needed as evidence, the owner can reclaim it by following these steps:
1. Contact the agency that seized the vehicle for specific requirements.
2. Prove ownership with documentation (e.g., vehicle registration, bill of sale).
3. Pay any fines or fees associated with the seizure.
4. Retrieve the vehicle.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law (248) 357-2550

Civil Forfeiture Laws:

Canada’s civil forfeiture laws allow provincial governments to seize property without compensation when it is suspected of being used to commit an illegal act or acquired through illegal means.

Conclusion:

Understanding the difference between vehicle seizure and forfeiture is crucial. If your vehicle is subject to forfeiture, seek legal representation to navigate the process and protect your rights.

For more detailed information, you can refer to the full article.

Please note that this summary provides an overview, and it is recommend you consult legal professionals for personalized advice.

Does Canada follow the US Constitution?

The U.S. Constitution spells out the specific powers of Congress, leaving everything else to the states. The Canadian Constitution does the opposite.

Provinces are limited to the powers explicitly given them by the Canadian Constitution and everything else is under the purview of the federal Parliament.

Canadian Bill of Rights

The Canadian Encyclopedia
The Canadian Bill of Rights recognizes the rights of individuals to life, liberty, personal security, and enjoyment of property. (It does not recognize “possession” of property, …

Want to learn more about the Canadian Charter of “Rights and Freedoms”.
Go here —> Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

Michigan Workers Right to Protest – Can They Force a Change in Business Strategy?

May 23, 2024 | Blog, Know Your Rights, Michigan Laws

Michigan Workers and the Right to Protest: Can They Force a Change in Business Strategy?

The ever-evolving economic landscape can create friction between Michigan workers and their employers. Workers may find themselves at odds with company strategies or investments, leading to protests aimed at forcing a change. But what legal rights do these workers have, and can they truly compel an alteration in business direction?

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) Framework

The foundation for worker protest rights in Michigan lies in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935. This federal law guarantees workers the right to engage in “concerted activities” for the purpose of “collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” However, the NLRA doesn’t grant a blank check for protest.

The key lies in the distinction between protected and unprotected activities.

Protected Protests: When Workers Have a Voice

Protected protests focus on issues directly related to the terms and conditions of employment, which are core subjects of collective bargaining. Examples include strikes or rallies over:

Wages and Benefits: Negotiations for fairer pay, improved health insurance plans, or additional paid time off fall under this category.

Job Security: Protests against layoffs, plant closures, or outsourcing of jobs directly impact job security, a core bargaining right. The seminal case, NLRB v. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. (1938) [URL nlrb v mackay radio & telegraph co 1938 ON Cornell University law.cornell.edu], established the right to strike over unfair labor practices that threaten job security.

Working Conditions: Protests concerning safety standards, excessive overtime, or unfair disciplinary actions are protected activities.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law (248) 357-2550

Unprotected Protests: When Business Decisions Hold Sway

Protests targeting broader business decisions, such as:

Plant Closures or Relocations: These decisions often involve complex economic factors beyond just labor costs. The NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1956) case exemplifies this.

Here, the closure was deemed outside the scope of mandatory bargaining as it wasn’t solely motivated by labor costs.

Product Development: Worker protests against specific product lines or company investments fall outside the scope of core bargaining rights.

Strategies for Effective Protests, Even When Business Strategy Reigns Supreme

While forcing a change in business strategy might be challenging, effective worker protests can still achieve significant results:

Focus on Core Bargaining Rights: Frame protests around the impact of the business decision on wages, benefits, or job security.

Negotiate with Management: Open communication with management can unearth underlying reasons for the decision and explore possible alternatives.

Union Strength: Unionized workers have greater leverage in negotiations and may have more protected activity under collective bargaining agreements.

Public Pressure: Utilize media outreach to raise awareness about the impact of the decision on workers and the local economy.

Political Advocacy: Lobby representatives to push for policies that protect worker interests in plant closures or relocations.

or just quit and go work at the record store.

Here are some of the laws in Michigan regarding employment relations…enjoy.

MCL – Act 176 of 1939

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSIONAct 176 of 1939 AN ACT to create a commission relative to labor disputes, and to prescribe its powers and duties; to provide for the mediation and arbitration of labor disputes, and the holding of elections thereon; to regulate the conduct of parties to labor disputes and to require the parties to follow certain procedures; to regulate and limit the right to strike and picket; to protect the rights and privileges of employees, including the right to organize and engage in lawful concerted activities; to protect the rights and privileges of employers; to make certain acts unlawful; to make appropriations; and to prescribe means of enforcement and penalties for violations of this act. The “People” of the State of Michigan enact:

Document	Type	Description
Section 423.1	Section	Declaration of public policy.
Section 423.2	Section	Definitions.
Section 423.3	Section	Employment relations commission; creation; appointment, qualifications, and terms of commissioners.
Section 423.4	Section	Employment relations commission; oath of commissioners; vacancies; chairman; removal; quorum; seal.
Section 423.5	Section	Employment relations commission; compensation and expenses of commissioners and employees.
Section 423.6	Section	Repealed. 1978, Act 250, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1978.
Section 423.7	Section	Employment relations commission; principal office; office space; rules.
Section 423.7a	Section	Employment relations commission; conducting business at public meeting; notice of meeting; availability of certain writings to public.
Section 423.8	Section	Employees; rights.
Section 423.9	Section	Prerequisites for strike or lockout; notice of dispute and statement of issues; mediation.
Section 423.9a	Section	Election in case of impending strike; conduct and supervision; time; persons entitled to vote; secret ballot; place; rules; absentee voting; hearing on eligibility to vote; determination.
Section 423.9b, 423.9c	Section	Repealed. 1978, Act 250, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1978.
Section 423.9d	Section	Voluntary arbitration; existing collective agreement as binding on parties; agreement to arbitrate; designation of arbitrator; expense of arbitration; enforcement of agreement; hearings; notice; procedure; transcript; findings; opinion and award; enforcement of award.
Section 423.9e	Section	Bargaining unit.
Section 423.9f	Section	Mass picketing; threats or force, picketing private residence, misdemeanor.
Section 423.9g	Section	Copy or statement of most recent offer submitted by employer to bargaining unit.
Section 423.10	Section	Steps by commission to effect settlement.
Section 423.11	Section	Hearings; witnesses; oaths; evidence; subpoena; order requiring appearance; contempt; service of process or papers; proof of service.
Section 423.12	Section	Disqualification of commissioner.
Section 423.13-423.13g	Section	Repealed. 1978, Act 250, Imd. Eff. June 20, 1978.
Section 423.14	Section	Collective bargaining agreement between employer and labor organization; sharing of financial support of labor organization; payment of dues; condition of employment; appropriation.
Section 423.15	Section	Unlawful possession of property; penalty.
Section 423.16	Section	Company unions; interference with unions and discrimination prohibited.
Section 423.17	Section	Prohibited conduct; violation; civil fine.
Section 423.17a	Section	Unlawful picketing to force recognition or bargain with labor organization.
Section 423.19	Section	Liberal construction of act; police powers.
Section 423.20	Section	Expenses paid from legislated appropriations.
Section 423.22	Section	Unlawful acts; legal or equitable remedy.
Section 423.22a	Section	Repealed. 1949, Act 230, Imd. Eff. May 31, 1949.
Section 423.23	Section	Review of rulings or orders by supreme court; exceptions; violations of certain provisions as unfair labor practices; remedies; procedures.
Section 423.24	Section	Conspiracy; penalty.
Section 423.25	Section	Written findings as to matters in disagreement; availability of writings to public.
Section 423.25a	Section	Confidential information.
Section 423.26	Section	Collective bargaining representatives; duties; grievances by individual employee; adjustment.
Section 423.27	Section	Petition as to representation; investigation; hearing; election.
Section 423.28	Section	Determination of appropriate unit for collective bargaining.
Section 423.29	Section	Directing election in bargaining unit; eligibility to vote; rules; rerun and runoff elections; election on petition of persons not parties to collective bargaining agreement.
Section 423.30	Section	Duty to bargain; collective bargaining, definition.

Conclusion

While Michigan law protects worker protest rights, there’s a fine line between influencing company strategy and exceeding the boundaries of protected activity. By focusing on core bargaining rights, employing strategic protest tactics, and understanding the legal framework, Michigan workers can effectively advocate for their interests. But can also hear the words… You’re fired. We are moving overseas.

Consulting with legal counsel specializing in labor law is crucial when navigating the complexities of protest rights and business decision-making.

In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

You’re too stupid to store a gun properly

Apr 20, 2024 | Blog, Know Your Rights, Michigan Laws, Your Rights

The Biden administration once again defends a ban in federal court, arguing that people who use marijuana should be prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.

They claim that this restriction is supported by historical precedent and that individuals who consume cannabis while owning guns pose a unique threat to society.

One of the reasons behind this argument is that such individuals are viewed as unlikely to store their weapons properly before using marijuana.

Attorneys for the Justice Department responded to a series of prompts from the judges, asserting that the firearm ban for marijuana consumers is justified based on historical analogues to restrictions on the mentally ill and habitually drunk that were imposed during the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791.

What the CDC Thinks

US Supreme Court: US v. PATRICK DARNELL DANIELS, JR. (2023)

State of Ohio vs Weber (2020) – At home drunk with a shotgun

DISCLAIMER
This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.

Illegal Firearms in Michigan

Apr 19, 2024 | Know Your Rights, Your Rights

Illegal Gun Ownership in Michigan: Insights and Statistics

The issue of illegal gun ownership in Michigan is a complex one, influenced by various factors ranging from criminal activity to loopholes in regulatory measures.

Understanding who owns illegal guns is crucial for developing targeted interventions and addressing the root causes of firearms-related crime. Let’s explore the demographics and statistics surrounding illegal gun ownership in Michigan.

Demographic Insights

Criminal Element: A significant proportion of illegal guns in Michigan are owned by individuals with criminal backgrounds. This includes convicted felons, individuals with restraining orders, and those involved in illicit activities such as drug trafficking and gang violence.
Youth Involvement: Youth involvement in illegal gun possession is a concerning trend in Michigan. According to data from law enforcement agencies, a notable number of illegal firearms are seized from young individuals involved in street crime and gang activity.
Trafficking Networks: Illegal firearms often flow through sophisticated trafficking networks, involving individuals with connections to criminal organizations and underground markets. These networks facilitate the movement of guns across state lines, making it challenging for law enforcement to track and intercept illegal weapons.

Statistical Overview

ATF Tracing Data: Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) provides insights into the origins of illegal guns recovered by law enforcement agencies in Michigan. From 2016 to 2020, ATF reports indicate that a significant percentage of traced firearms were obtained through illegal channels, including straw purchases, thefts, and unregulated sales.
Crime Gun Analysis: Crime gun analysis conducted by law enforcement agencies offers valuable insights into the types of firearms used in criminal activities. In Michigan, handguns are the most commonly recovered illegal firearms, followed by rifles and shotguns. This underscores the prevalence of illegal handguns in urban areas, where they are often used in acts of violence and intimidation.
Geographical Patterns: Geographical analysis of illegal gun ownership in Michigan reveals regional disparities in firearms-related crime. Urban areas such as Detroit and Flint experience higher rates of illegal gun possession and firearms-related violence compared to rural areas. Factors such as poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to legal firearms contribute to these disparities.

Addressing the Issue

Combatting illegal gun ownership in Michigan requires a multifaceted approach that addresses the underlying factors driving firearms-related crime. This includes:

Strengthening enforcement efforts to disrupt trafficking networks and dismantle illegal firearms markets.
Implementing targeted interventions aimed at at-risk youth to prevent their involvement in gun-related criminal activities.
Enhancing regulatory measures to close loopholes and prevent the diversion of legal firearms into the illegal market.

Understanding the demographics and statistics surrounding illegal gun ownership in Michigan is essential for developing effective strategies to combat firearms-related crime. By targeting enforcement efforts, addressing root causes, and fostering collaboration between law enforcement agencies and community stakeholders, Michigan can work towards reducing the prevalence of illegal guns and creating safer communities for all residents.

Understanding Michigan Law

Michigan’s laws regarding firearm ownership and possession are outlined in the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL). Specifically, MCL 28.422 details the criteria for obtaining a Concealed Pistol License (CPL) and outlines the procedures for individuals seeking to restore their firearms rights.

MCL Section 750.224 is another location to find laws about weapons in Michigan.

MCL – Section 750.224a has more.

Go through each section by using the next arrow on the website.

You may want to come back and take a look at the laws in more detail as this article does not dive too deep into the laws. There’s a lot.

Real Questions from Real Calls

Question: What if I get caught with an unregistered gun in Michigan?

Answer: Say as little as possible and call a lawyer ASAP.

Real Questions from Real Calls

Question: What about my Long Gun in Michigan?

Answer: Universal background checks

Previous state law only required background checks for pistol sales and effectively didn’t mandate such criminal background checks or registration for other types of firearms, such as rifles.

A prohibition on purchasing a firearm without a license in the state, as well as a new mandate for universal background checks for all firearm sales, go into effect in Feb 2024. This will not impact individuals who have already purchased long guns without such requirements. More you need to know about the new laws.

Steps to Restore Second Amendment Rights

1. Expungement of Convictions

For individuals with criminal convictions, pursuing expungement may be the first step towards restoring their firearms rights. Michigan’s recent expungement laws allow for the sealing of certain criminal records, enabling individuals to regain their firearms privileges under specific circumstances. Refer to MCL 780.621 for more information on the expungement process.

2. Petition for Restoration

Those who have lost their firearms rights due to criminal convictions or mental health adjudications can petition the court for restoration. This involves filing a petition with the circuit court in the county of residence. The court will review the individual’s case, considering factors such as rehabilitation, conduct since the conviction, and any mitigating circumstances. Consult MCL 28.425 for detailed information on the restoration process.

3. Compliance with Federal Requirements

In addition to state laws, individuals seeking to restore their firearms rights must also comply with federal regulations. This may include completing background checks and adhering to any federal restrictions on firearms ownership.

Seeking Legal Counsel

Navigating the process of restoring Second Amendment rights can be complex, especially considering the legal intricacies involved. As such, seeking guidance from a qualified attorney specializing in firearms law is highly recommended.

An attorney can provide invaluable assistance, ensuring that individuals understand their rights and obligations under both state and federal law.

Real Questions from Real Calls

Question: The application from the ATF Form 4473 asks if I use any illegal drugs. I have my medical marijuana card and it’s legal in Michigan right? So can I get a gun?

Answer: Unless you are the president’s son if you answered “No” on the form where it asks if you use illegal drugs you would be lying and your gun rights probably taken away and possibl;y charged with a crime.

Marihuana is still illegal federally and still in the public health code and listed as a controlled substance 1 in Michigan.

As it states on the ATF Form 4473 Part 1

Q: Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

If you got this far here are some news articles

Here’s what you need to know about Michigan’s gun laws that take effect Tuesday (Feb 13, 2024)

Michigan: House Passes Long Gun Registration & Permit Mandate (March 10, 2023)

With a Stroke of the Pen, Biden ATF Criminalizes Tens of Thousands of Private Firearm Sellers (April 12, 2024)

Related Articles

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment

Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever!Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term...

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...

What are Miranda Rights?

What are Miranda Rights?Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda warning, are the rights given to people in the United States upon arrest. “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” These rights stem...

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

What is the Exclusionary Rule?The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the United States that prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Specifically, it applies to evidence obtained through an...

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

Borders and Cannabis and MoneyFerengi Rule of Acquisition #41. Profit is its own reward.If you bring your own cannabis to Canada. How does the Canadian government profit? They don't so they will punish you if you get caught. It's simple. It's about the money. That is...