If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

August 1, 2024

v No. 368367

Kent Circuit Court

CORTEZ DEANDRE-LAMARR MCSWAIN, LC No. 23-009738-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CAMERON, P.J., and M. J. KELLY and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal, defendant appeals by leave granted1the trial court’s order 

denying his motion to quash the bindover on the charge of carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 

750.227(2). We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped because officers believed it 

contained firearms. They found two handguns under the front passenger seat—which defendant 

admitted belonged to him. Defendant was arrested because he was not licensed to carry a firearm. 

He was charged with carrying a concealed weapon pursuant to MCL 750.227(2), which states it is 

a felony to carry a firearm in a motor vehicle without a concealed pistol license (CPL).

Defendant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the permit requirement of MCL 

750.227 violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution as 

articulated by New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc, Inc v Bruen, 597 US 1; 142 S Ct 2111; 213 L 

Ed 2d 387 (2022). The district court denied the motion and defendant was bound over bound 

 

1 People v McSwain, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 28, 2024 

(Docket No. 368367).
-2-

defendant over on the charge. Defendant then moved the circuit court to quash the bindover and 

for dismissal, but the circuit court denied the motion. This appeal followed.

II. PERMIT REQUIREMENT

Defendant maintains that the circuit court should have granted his motion because the 

permit requirement of MCL 750.227 violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the 

United States Constitution. We disagree.

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo questions involving the constitutionality of a statute. People 

v Piper, 223 Mich App 642, 645; 567 NW2d 483 (1997). Statutes are presumed constitutional. 

Id. The party challenging the constitutionality of a statute bears the burden of proving the statute’s 

invalidity. Id.

B. LAW AND ANALYSIS

Defendant was charged with violating MCL 750.227(2), which provides:

A person shall not carry a pistol concealed on or about his or her person, or, 

whether concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle operated or occupied by the person, 

except in his or her dwelling house, place of business, or on other land possessed 

by the person, without a license to carry the pistol as provided by law and if 

licensed, shall not carry the pistol in a place or manner inconsistent with any 

restrictions upon such license.

In People v Langston, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 

367270), slip op at 2, this Court recently addressed the exact issue in this case—specifically, 

whether the permit requirement of MCL 750.227 “was an unconstitutional violation of [the] right 

to bear arms.” Like this case, the Langston defendant was arrested and charged under MCL 

750.227(2) after police discovered a firearm in her purse during a traffic stop. Id. at 1. The 

defendant moved to dismiss, citing the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, 597 US 

at 70-71, which explained that certain concealed-carry laws run afoul of the Second Amendment’s 

right to bear arms and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process clause. Langston, ___ Mich App 

at ___; slip op at 2. This Court distinguished Michigan’s statutory scheme from the one in Bruen, 

concluding “the requirement of MCL 750.227 that a person must possess a valid CPL in order to 

carry a pistol in an automobile does not violate the Second Amendment.” Langston, ___ Mich 

App at ___; slip op at 3. We further held that Michigan’s “shall-issue statutory scheme requiring 

a concealed pistol license does not inherently violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to 

the United States Constitution.” Id. at ___; slip op at 5.

Defendant’s appeal is entirely focused on his belief that the permit requirement of MCL 

750.227 violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. But, we are bound by Langston’s 

holding to the contrary. MCR 7.215(J)(1) (“A panel of the Court of Appeals must follow the rule 
-3-

of law established by a prior published decision of the Court of Appeals issued on or after 

November 1, 1990[.]”). Defendant’s argument is therefore meritless.2

Affirmed.

/s/ Thomas C. Cameron 

/s/ Michael J. Kelly 

/s/ Christopher P. Yates 

 

2 We recognize the Langston defendant-appellant’s application for leave to appeal to our Supreme 

Court is still pending. But:

A published opinion of the Court of Appeals has precedential effect under 

the rule of stare decisis. The filing of an application for leave to appeal in the 

Supreme Court or a Supreme Court order granting leave to appeal does not diminish 

the precedential effect of a published opinion of the Court of Appeals. [MCR 

7.215(C)(2).]

As such, Langston remains binding precedent.