Opinion ID: 848612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the majority's philosophical contradictions

Text: The justices of the majority have departed from their own rules of statutory construction in construing MCL 750.224f(2). During this very court term, most of the same justices stated: Fundamental canons of statutory interpretation require us to discern and give effect to the Legislature's intent as expressed by the language of its statutes. If such language is unambiguous, as most such [sic] language is, we presume that the Legislature intended the meaning clearly expressed-no further judicial construction is required or permitted, and the statute must be enforced as written. [ Garg v. Macomb Co. Community Mental Health Services, 472 Mich. 263, 281, 696 N.W.2d 646 (2005) (citations and quotation marks omitted).] There is no suggestion that the majority finds the language in MCL 750.224f(2) ambiguous. Hence, it violates its own rules of statutory interpretation when it relies on decisions in sister states to interpret the intent of the Michigan Legislature. Under the majority's judicial philosophy, reference to outside material is of no value in the face of a clear text. Moreover, the citation of the annotation at 69 A.L.R.3d 1054 adds nothing to the majority's analysis of the statute in this case. The decisions cited in the annotation are based on widely divergent statutory language in other states. Because that language is so different from the language of MCL 750.224f(2), conclusions in the annotation are of no assistance in determining what the Michigan Legislature intended when enacting our statute. Beyond this, at least some of the cases cited in the annotation demonstrate that a legislature can create an easily recognizable exception or proviso when it desires to do so. For example, the Pennsylvania statute provides that no person shall carry a firearm in public ` unless . . . such person is licensed to carry a firearm[.]' Commonwealth v. Bigelow, 250 Pa.Super. 330, 332, 378 A.2d 961 (1977), quoting 18 Pa Consol Stat 6108 (emphasis added). Clearly the Michigan Legislature could have done what the Pennsylvania legislature did: it explicitly created an exemption. [24] Furthermore, even under the analysis offered by the majority, Henderson was wrongly decided. One thing the majority and I agree about in the instant case is that an exception, excuse, proviso, or exemption has to be clearly indicated by the language of the statute. In the statute before us, MCL 750.224f(2), the majority argues that the word until introduces a proviso. In contrast, the statute involved in Henderson contains nothing preceding the language without a license that could be argued to introduce an exemption, excuse, proviso, or exemption. [25] Therefore, I believe that, under the majority's analysis, Henderson must be found to have been wrongly decided. In addition, its reliance on Henderson contradicts the majority's analysis discussing exceptions, excuses, provisos, and exemptions. In the end, Henderson offers nothing supportive of the majority's construction of MCL 750.224f(2). Again, the Legislature knows how to use the terms exception, excuse, proviso, or exemption. And it knows how to create exceptions by the use of the term unless, as it has repeatedly done throughout the Penal Code. But the Legislature chose not to use any of those terms in either MCL 750.224f(2) or MCL 750.227, the statute analyzed in Henderson. I would not turn a blind eye to those choices. Instead, I would enforce the statutes as the Legislature wrote them. In this case, it requires finding that the restoration of the right to possess a firearm is an element of the offense of felon in possession.