Improper Transport of a Firearm in Michigan

Improper Transport of a Firearm in Michigan

Improper Firearms Transport, Storage Laws and Penalties

Michigan law makes improper gun transport a misdemeanor crime under MCL 750.227d. Firearms can be confiscated and sometimes not returned, but attorneys can file motions under Michigan Court Rules (MCR) to seek their release. Below is a clear overview of the law, penalties, procedures, and real case examples.

Michigan Improper Gun Transport Laws

Statute: MCL 750.227d 

Transporting or possessing firearm in or upon motor vehicle or self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel; violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

(1) Except as otherwise permitted by law, a person shall not transport or possess in or upon a motor vehicle or any self-propelled vehicle designed for land travel either of the following:

(a) A firearm, other than a pistol, unless the firearm is unloaded and is 1 or more of the following:

(i) Taken down.
(ii) Enclosed in a case.
(iii) Carried in the trunk of the vehicle.
(iv) Inaccessible from the interior of the vehicle.

(b) A pneumatic gun that expels a metallic BB or metallic pellet greater than .177 caliber unless the pneumatic gun is unloaded and is 1 or more of the following:

(i) Taken down.
(ii) Enclosed in a case.
(iii) Carried in the trunk of the vehicle.
(iv) Inaccessible from the interior of the vehicle.

(2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

Type of Crime: Violations are classified as misdemeanors, not felonies

Penalties: Conviction may result in up to 90 days in jail, fines, and confiscation of the firearm

Handguns and Pistols are Different

In Michigan, improper storage and transportation of a pistol can lead to serious legal consequences. Here are the key points to consider:
Secure Storage: Firearms must be stored in a secure container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar device. This is crucial to prevent unauthorized access, especially by minors.

Transportation Regulations: Firearms must be transported in a manner that ensures they are unloaded and inaccessible from the vehicle. This includes storing them in a locked box or container, carrying them in the trunk, or ensuring they are enclosed in a case designed for the gun.

Penalties: Violating these regulations can result in misdemeanor charges, with penalties including imprisonment for up to 90 days or a fine of up to $100.00. In more severe cases, such as when a minor is injured or killed, the penalties can escalate to felony charges with imprisonment for up to 15 years or a fine of up to $10,000.

It is essential for firearm owners in Michigan to comply with these laws to ensure public safety and prevent preventable harm. Failure to do so can lead to legal penalties and serious consequences.

Michigan Firearm Storage Penalties

What are the firearm storage requirements under Michigan’s safe storage law?

Read about it here

Why Firearms Are Confiscated and Not Returned

Courts or police may keep firearms when:

  • The weapon was involved in a crime.
  • The owner is prohibited from possessing firearms due to felony conviction or protective orders.
  • Under Michigan’s Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law, guns can be seized if someone is deemed a danger.
  • Or because they want to

Michigan – Felons, Non Felons and Domestic Violence.

In Michigan, individuals who are not felons and have not been convicted of specified felonies may still face restrictions on their firearm rights. The state has a criminal statute that prohibits convicted felons and people convicted of crimes of domestic violence from possessing firearms. The statute is MCL 750.224f, which effectively removes firearm rights for those convicted of specific felonies.

For non-felons, the process to restore firearm rights involves waiting three years after completing all penalties for the conviction, which includes paying fines, serving incarceration, and completing probation or parole. If the individual meets these requirements, their firearm rights will be automatically restored after three years.

However, for specified felonies, the process is more complicated. Individuals must wait five years after paying all fines, serving all terms of imprisonment, and completing probation or parole before they can petition the circuit court for restoration of their firearm rights. The court will consider various factors, including rehabilitation and public safety concerns, before making a decision.
It is important for individuals to understand the specific laws and processes that apply to their situation to ensure they can successfully restore their firearm rights.

MSP Legal Update 2023 regarding MCL 750.224f

Procedures Attorneys Use to Seek Return

An attorney may:

  • File a motion for return of property under MCR 6.310 (post-conviction relief).
  • Petition the court under MCR 2.604 for property release if the case is dismissed.
  • Provide proof of lawful ownership and eligibility to possess firearms.
  • Challenge confiscation under constitutional grounds if rights were violated.

What Needs to Be Filed

Motion for Return of Property (citing MCR rules).

  • Supporting documents: proof of ownership, CPL license if applicable, and evidence of compliance with firearm laws.
  • In ERPO cases, attorneys may file a motion to terminate the order.

Case Examples

People v. Schultz (2020) – Court addressed restoration of firearm rights after felony conviction. Benchbook

Battle Creek ERPO Case (2024) – Guns seized from a man threatening his wife; court upheld confiscation. (News Article)
Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Manual.

Oakland County Case (2025) – Defendant convicted of improper transport; firearm not returned due to violation of MCL 750.227d (court record reference).

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

 

Q: Is improper gun transport in Michigan a felony?

A: No, it is a misdemeanor under MCL 750.227d.

Q: Can my gun be taken even if I wasn’t convicted?

A: Yes, under ERPO laws or if police believe the firearm is evidence.

Q: What Michigan Court Rule applies to getting property back?

A: Attorneys often use MCR 6.310 or MCR 2.604 to file motions for return.

Q: How long can the court keep my firearm?

A: Until the case is resolved or until a judge orders its release.

Q: Do I need a lawyer to get my gun back?

A: Yes, because the process involves legal filings and hearings that require professional representation.

Legal Defense: Komorn Law PLLC

If you or someone you know is facing firearms related charges,  Attorney Michael Komorn is an aggressive defense and offense advocate. If you are looking to fight a firearms charge from criminal allegations or out of the principle of second amendment rights, hire Komorn Law.

Attorney Michael Komorn

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

More Articles

More

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude (or sometimes allow) specific evidence before the jury ever hears it. It’s one of the most important evidentiary tools in both criminal and civil...

read more
What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit. When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law...

read more
Shadow cash is corrupting Michigan courtrooms

Shadow cash is corrupting Michigan courtrooms

The Shadow Cash Threat: Protecting the Integrity of Michigan Courtrooms In recent months, a spotlight has been cast on a hidden influence within the Michigan legal system: "shadow cash." This term refers to third-party litigation funding (TPLF), where outside...

read more

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Gun Rights and Marijuana Use

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Gun Rights and Marijuana Use

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Gun Rights and Marijuana Use

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear U.S. v. Hemani, a case challenging the federal ban on gun ownership by individuals who use marijuana—even in states where it’s legal. The decision could reshape how drug use intersects with Second Amendment rights.

The federal law in question prohibits firearm possession by anyone who uses controlled substances. This includes marijuana, which remains illegal under federal law despite legalization in many states. Gun rights groups argue this blanket ban violates constitutional protections.

  • Federal Law at Issue

    Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), drug users are barred from owning firearms. This includes medical marijuana patients.

  • State vs. Federal Conflict

    States like Michigan allow marijuana use, but federal law still applies. This creates legal confusion for gun owners.

  • Gun Rights Advocacy

    Groups like the Second Amendment Foundation argue that responsible marijuana users should not lose their gun rights.

The court has granted an extension, moving the deadline for the government to file a brief from December 4 to December 12. The respondents are now required to submit their brief by January 20, 2026, while the government will need to provide a reply brief by February 19.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQs

Q: Can medical marijuana users own guns?

A: Not under current federal law, even if their state allows marijuana use.

Q: What is the Supreme Court deciding?

A: Whether the federal ban violates the Second Amendment.

Q: When will the case be heard?

A: Briefs are due in early 2026, with a decision likely later that year.

Q: What happens if the Court rules against the ban? A: It could restore gun rights to marijuana users nationwide.

Q: Does this affect other drug users?

A: Yes. The ruling could impact how gun laws apply to all controlled substances.

Legal Defense: Komorn Law PLLC

If you or someone you know is facing marijuana-related charges under from the cannabis enforcement teams or federal drug laws, Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law PLLC offers aggressive and strategic defense. With decades of experience in cannabis law and federal litigation, Komorn Law understands the nuances of Michigan’s evolving marijuana regulations and how to challenge overreach or misapplication in court.

Komorn Law can:

  • Challenge unlawful search and seizure
  • Dispute quantity assessments and intent
  • Navigate federal vs. state law conflicts
  • Advocate for reduced or dismissed charges
Attorney Michael Komorn

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

More Articles

More

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude (or sometimes allow) specific evidence before the jury ever hears it. It’s one of the most important evidentiary tools in both criminal and civil...

read more
What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit. When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law...

read more
Shadow cash is corrupting Michigan courtrooms

Shadow cash is corrupting Michigan courtrooms

The Shadow Cash Threat: Protecting the Integrity of Michigan Courtrooms In recent months, a spotlight has been cast on a hidden influence within the Michigan legal system: "shadow cash." This term refers to third-party litigation funding (TPLF), where outside...

read more
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Maryland Gun Permit Case

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Maryland Gun Permit Case

The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear Snope v. Brown, a case challenging Maryland’s requirement for a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

While the Court offered no explanation, the decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that upheld the state’s permitting system—raising questions about how far constitutional carry rights extend.

This case followed the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed carry permits. Plaintiffs in Snope argued that Maryland’s similar restrictions violated the Second Amendment. However, the Court’s refusal to hear the case means Maryland’s law stands—for now.

  • Case Background: Snope v. Brown

    Plaintiffs challenged Maryland’s concealed carry permit law, arguing it imposed unconstitutional barriers to lawful gun ownership. The Fourth Circuit upheld the law, and the Supreme Court denied review on June 2, 2025.

  • Justice Kavanaugh’s Statement

    While concurring with the denial, Justice Kavanaugh emphasized that the Court may revisit the issue if states continue to impose burdensome restrictions inconsistent with Bruen.

  • Second Amendment Precedent

    The Bruen decision established that gun regulations must align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Maryland’s law was found to meet that standard by lower courts.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

FAQs

Q: What is constitutional carry?

A: It refers to the right to carry a firearm without a permit, based on the Second Amendment.

Q: Did the Supreme Court ban permits?

A: No. States can still require permits if the laws meet constitutional standards.

Q: What did Bruen change?

A: It required states to justify gun restrictions based on historical tradition.

Q: Can Maryland residents carry without a permit?

A: No. Maryland still requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

Q: Will the Court revisit this issue?

A: Possibly. Justices have signaled interest in future cases.

Legal Defense: Komorn Law PLLC

If you or someone you know is facing marijuana-related charges under from the cannabis enforcement teams or federal drug laws, Attorney Michael Komorn of Komorn Law PLLC offers aggressive and strategic defense. With decades of experience in cannabis law and federal litigation, Komorn Law understands the nuances of Michigan’s evolving marijuana regulations and how to challenge overreach or misapplication in court.

Komorn Law can:

  • Challenge unlawful search and seizure
  • Dispute quantity assessments and intent
  • Navigate federal vs. state law conflicts
  • Advocate for reduced or dismissed charges
Attorney Michael Komorn

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

More Articles

More

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude (or sometimes allow) specific evidence before the jury ever hears it. It’s one of the most important evidentiary tools in both criminal and civil...

read more
What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Franks Hearing?

What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit. When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law...

read more
Shadow cash is corrupting Michigan courtrooms

Shadow cash is corrupting Michigan courtrooms

The Shadow Cash Threat: Protecting the Integrity of Michigan Courtrooms In recent months, a spotlight has been cast on a hidden influence within the Michigan legal system: "shadow cash." This term refers to third-party litigation funding (TPLF), where outside...

read more
MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

Does the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act protect you in all Marijuana scenarios?

The Conflict

The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., prevents a person accused of possession with intent to deliver between 5 and 45 kilograms of marijuana from being prosecuted under MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(ii).

Some Background

At a preliminary examination, Michigan State Police Trooper Joshua Ashlock testified about the circumstances of this case.

On October, 26, 2022, Trooper Ashlock received information that Illinois State Police intercepted approximately 85 pounds of marijuana in a rental vehicle headed for southwest Michigan.

The driver of the vehicle agreed to cooperate with Illinois State Police and deliver the marijuana as originally planned to Chad Boylen. Per Boylen’s instruction,the driver brought the marijuana to defendant’s residence in Niles, Michigan. Boylen was arrested outside the residence. Defendant eventually exited the residence after police officers surrounded the house and called for her to exit.

A “protective sweep of the residence” revealed large quantities of marijuana inside.

“After” obtaining a search warrant, officers seized approximately 20 pounds of marijuana from the residence, the majority of which was found in what was believed to be
defendant’s bedroom.

Attorney Michael Komorn

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

No soup for you says the Michigan Court of Appeals. Back to the public health code you go.

Court of Appeals Opinion

Because we conclude the MRTMA provides no such proscription,we affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for trial on felony charges.

If you want to know more read the opinion here, otherwise just call our office if you get in the same sticky situation.

STATE OF MICHIGAN v JULIA KATHLEEN SOTO – MRTMA – COA 20241007_c370138_23_370138.opn

Note: This article provides a general overview and does not substitute for legal advice. Anyone charged with a CSC offense should consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.

More Articles

What does Nolle Prosequi mean?

What does Nolle Prosequi mean?

What does Nolle Prosequi mean? Fatal Flaw In criminal cases, nolle prosequi may be employed when there is a significant weakness in the prosecution's case, when the prosecutor acknowledges an inability to prove the charges, or even when the prosecutor has lost...

read more
People v. Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999)

People v. Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999)

Case Summary The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the defendant’s conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct against his fourteen‑year‑old daughter. The Court held that although one evidentiary error occurred, it was...

read more

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The “automobile exception” in Michigan law allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.

This exception is grounded in the idea that vehicles are inherently mobile, meaning evidence could be moved or destroyed before a warrant is obtained.

Probable cause is a key element in applying this exception.

If law enforcement has a reasonable belief—based on the facts and circumstances—that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of illegal activity, they can conduct a search.

This standard often arises in cases involving drug-related offenses.

For example, the smell of marijuana has frequently been cited as a factor contributing to probable cause, although recent rulings have added complexity due to the legalization of marijuana in small amounts under Michigan law.

Use You Right To Remain Silent

If you have been accused or charged with a crime.
Say nothing to anyone. Talk to us first.
Our firm is experienced in both State and Federal courts defending clients.

CALL NOW

One notable case is People v. Kazmierczak (2000), where the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the smell of marijuana alone could justify a search under the automobile exception.

However, as marijuana laws evolved, this principle was reconsidered.

In People v. Armstrong (2023), the court ruled that while the smell of marijuana can contribute to probable cause, it must be combined with other suspicious factors to justify a search.

Attorney Michael Komorn

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 debate around this exception continues as courts balance law enforcement’s ability to investigate crimes and individuals’ privacy rights, especially with the legalization of marijuana in Michigan.

Cases

Several legal cases have examined the validity of conducting warrantless vehicle searches based on the odor of marijuana, particularly considering the changing landscape of marijuana legislation.

People v. Freddie Wilkins III (2024):  In Wilkins’ case, the search was triggered by the odor of marijuana, but his defense challenged whether that alone should constitute probable cause for a broader search, particularly when possession of small amounts of marijuana is legal.

People v. Armstrong (2023): In this instance, the courts in Michigan reassessed the applicability of the automobile exception, taking into consideration the provisions outlined in the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA).

The court ruled that while the smell of marijuana could still contribute to probable cause, it must be accompanied by other suspicious factors to justify a search. This case closely mirrors Wilkins, where the search was based on marijuana odor but also raised questions about unregistered firearms found during the search​.

People v. Moorman (2020): During a traffic stop, a police officer detected the scent of marijuana, and when the defendant denied possessing any, this denial, along with the odor, provided the officer with probable cause to conduct a search of the vehicle.

The court found that the defendant’s behavior, along with the odor, justified the search, similar to the arguments presented in Wilkins. The ruling was based on the idea that such behavior suggests illegal possession beyond the legal limits​

People v. Kazmierczak (2000): Previously, Michigan courts held that the smell of marijuana alone was sufficient to establish probable cause for a vehicle search.

However, this decision was later overruled in part due to changes in marijuana laws.

This case laid the groundwork for discussions like those in Wilkins, where courts must determine if the presence of marijuana (legal in small amounts) is enough to justify a search​.

Note: This article provides a general overview and does not substitute for legal advice. Anyone charged with a CSC offense should consult an attorney for specific legal guidance.

More Articles

What does Nolle Prosequi mean?

What does Nolle Prosequi mean?

What does Nolle Prosequi mean? Fatal Flaw In criminal cases, nolle prosequi may be employed when there is a significant weakness in the prosecution's case, when the prosecutor acknowledges an inability to prove the charges, or even when the prosecutor has lost...

read more
People v. Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999)

People v. Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999)

Case Summary The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the defendant’s conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct against his fourteen‑year‑old daughter. The Court held that although one evidentiary error occurred, it was...

read more