Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Metallic Knuckles

Case Summary

In People v Dummer, the defendant challenged Michigan’s metallic‑knuckles statute, arguing that simply possessing the weapon was protected by the Second Amendment. The Michigan Court of Appeals acknowledged that possession of metallic knuckles is presumptively protected conduct. However, after conducting a historical analysis, the court concluded that metallic knuckles were widely prohibited during the era surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because they were historically viewed as “dangerous and unusual” weapons associated with criminal activity rather than lawful self‑defense, the statute survived the facial constitutional challenge.

Background

Michigan’s prohibition on metallic knuckles appears in MCL 750.224(1)(d), which criminalizes possession of certain weapons deemed inherently dangerous. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment decisions, courts must evaluate whether a weapon is part of the nation’s historical tradition of lawful firearm and weapon regulation.

Metallic knuckles occupy a unique place in weapons law. They are not designed for hunting, self‑defense, or sport. Historically, they were associated with street violence, ambush attacks, and criminal misuse. This history became central to the court’s analysis.

Lower and Higher Court Opinions

The defendant raised a facial challenge, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional in all applications. The Court of Appeals rejected the challenge, finding:

• Possession of metallic knuckles is presumptively protected under the Second Amendment.

• But historical evidence showed widespread 19th‑century bans on metallic knuckles.

• These weapons were considered “dangerous and unusual,” placing them outside the core of protected conduct.

Because the historical tradition supported prohibiting such weapons, the statute remained valid.

What’s at Stake

This case highlights the evolving landscape of Second Amendment litigation. Courts must balance modern constitutional standards with historical weapon‑regulation practices. The ruling reinforces that:

• Not all weapons fall within the Second Amendment’s protection.

• Legislatures may prohibit weapons historically associated with criminal misuse.

• Facial challenges face a high bar, especially when historical evidence supports regulation.

For defendants, the case underscores that weapon‑possession laws remain enforceable even in a post‑Bruen legal environment.

In Closing

People v Dummer reaffirms that Michigan’s metallic‑knuckles ban is constitutionally sound. While the Second Amendment protects many forms of weapon possession, it does not extend to weapons historically viewed as dangerous, unusual, and primarily used for unlawful purposes. The decision provides a clear roadmap for evaluating similar challenges in the future.

Here are some related links and articles

• People v Dummer, No 369752, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (Mar 18, 2025)

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550.