Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
chief ]usti€€ justices
Maura D. Corrigan Michael F. Cavanagh
I §
Elizabeth A. Weaver
1111011
Clifford W. Taylor
Robert P. Young, ]r.
Stephen I. Markman
FILED JUNE 16, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v No. l24532
GENERAL A. LANEY,
Defendant~Appellant.
PER CURIAM
Defendant, a federally licensed gun dealer, sold a
Vpistol to an undercover sheriff's deputy licensed to
purchase the firearm, under circumstances strongly
indicating that the deputy was purchasing the firearm on
behalf of an underage, unlicensed individual. As a result,
the prosecutor charged defendant with violating MCL
750.223(1), a misdemeanor. That statute proscribes
selling a pistol without complying with the licensing
requirements set forth in MCL 28.422(5). The district
court, concluding that defendant had complied with MCL
28.422(5), dismissed the charges against him, and the
circuit court affirmed. The Court of ‘Appeals, however,
reversed and reinstated the charge on the basis that
whether the deputy was purchasing the gun for himself or
the unlicensed individual was a question of fact. Because
the sale complied with MCL 28.422(5), we reverse the
decision of the Court of Appeals.
I
An understanding of certain aspects of federal and
state law regarding the sale of firearms and ammunition is
helpful to properly analyze this case. A firearms dealer
licensed by the United States Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, under 18 USC
923(d)(1)(A), may sell firearms or ammunition only to a
person twenty-one years of age or older, except that the
dealer may sell a rifle or shotgun to a person eighteen
years of age. 18 USC 922(b)(l). Thus, a federally
licensed firearms dealer may legally sell shotguns and
rifles to persons eighteen years of age or older, but may
sell a pistol only to a person twenty-one years of age or
older.
Michigan requires a prospective purchaser of a pistol
to first obtain a license from the purchaser's local law
enforcement agency. MCL 28.422(3). An applicant is
qualified to dbtain a license to purchase a pistol if,
among other things, he is at least eighteen. A purchaser
must be at least twenty-one, however, for a federally
licensed gun dealer to legally sell a pistol to that
purchaser. MCL 28.422 (3) (b) .
Thus, under the federal and state statutory schemes, a
licensed eighteen-year-old may legally purchase or receive
as a gift a pistol from a private party, but may not
purchase a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer.
II
Defendant is a federally licensed gun dealer who owns
a gun shop in Detroit. On April 6, 1999, wayne County
Sheriff’s Deputies walter Epps and Roshunda Coming, working
undercover with an eighteen-year-old civilian, Antonio
Little, visited defendant’s shop. Little told defendant
that he wanted to buy a handgun, and defendant asked Little
if he was licensed to purchase a handgun. when Little
replied that he was not, defendant told him that he could
not sell him a gun without a license and that he had to be
twenty-one to buy a handgun.
Epps then told defendant that he had a license to
purchase a pistol and asked to look at several models that
defendant had available for sale. Defendant showed Epps
several pistols and discussed them with Little and Epps.
Epps then asked about purchasing more than one gun, and
defendant explained that Epps could legally purchase only
one handgun in a five-day period, even if he had more than
one license.
Epps eventually settled on a pistol he wanted to
purchase and produced identification and his license to
purchase the 'weapon. Epps, with. defendant’s assistance,
completed the required forms indicating that Epps was the
buyer of the pistol. At that point, Little attempted to
hand defendant the funds to pay for the gun, Defendant,
however, refused the money, telling Little that Epps had to
complete the sale. Little then gave the cash to Epps, who
handed the money to defendant. Defendant then gave the gun
to Epps.
III
The prosecutor charged defendant with violating MCL
750.223(1), which proscribes selling a pistol without
complying with the requirements of MCL 28.422(5). The
prosecutor's theory was that defendant actually sold the
pistol to Little. Defendant moved to dismiss the charge on
various grounds, including legal impossibility and
entrapment. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district
court granted the motion in part on the ground of legal
impossibility1 and because, in the court's view, the
1 The doctrine of legal impossibility is irrelevant
here where defendant is charged with a completed offense.
prosecutor had failed to establish that defendant had
committed a crime. The court reasoned:
[D]efendant's only dbligation under the
licensing statute was to complete the license
form by including the signature of the seller, a
description of the pistol sold and the date of
sale. The license form. in this case contained
all of that information.
0n appeal, the circuit court affirmed. A majority of
the Court of Appeals reversed,z holding that under these
particular circumstances, a material question of fact
existed regarding whether the pistol was actually “sold to"
Little, and not to Epps. The Court opined that a jury
could conclude that defendant knew Epps was using Little’s
money to purchase the pistol and that Epps intended to give
the pistol to Little. while the Court of Appeals disavowed
adoption of the federal “straw man doctrine,” it cited
cases relying on this federal doctrine in support of its
reasoning.3 Those cases conclude that it is a jury
determination whether a defendant violates 28 USC
922(b)(3), which prohibits the sale of handguns to
See People v Ihousand, 465 Mich l49, 156-l57; 631 Nw2d 694
(2001).
2 258 Mich App 25; 669 Nw2d 583 (2003).
3 United States v Brooks, 611 F2d 614 (CA 5, 1980),
overruled on other grounds sub nom Uhited States v Henry,
749 F2d 203, 206 and n 2 (CA 5, l984), and Uhited States v
Straach, 987 F2d 232, 240 n 9 (CA 5, l993).
residents of` a different state than that of a federally
licensed seller, by engaging in sham sales to residents.4
Defendant seeks leave to appeal in this Court.
IV
we review de novo issues of statutory interpretation.
Peqple v Carlson, 466 Mich l30, 136; 644 Nw2d 704 (2002);
People v Krueger, 466 Mich 50, 53; 643 Nw2d 223 (2002). If
the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, as it
is here, the Legislature is presumed to have intended the
meaning plainly expressed, andy judicial construction is
neither necessary nor permitted. In such cases, the
statute is enforced as written. In re MCI, 460 Mich 396,
4l1; 596 Nw2d 164 (1999).
V
MCL 28.422 governs the purchase, carrying, and
transporting of pistols in Michigan and requires a
purchaser of a pistol to obtain a license for that purchase
from a local law enforcement agency. MCL 28.422(l), (3).
MCL 28.422(5) further provides:‘
Upon the sale of the pistol, the seller
shall fill out the license forms describing the
pistol sold, together with the date of sale, and
sign his or her name in ink indicating that the
pistol was sold to the licensee. The licensee
shall also sign his or her name in ink indicating
4 The dissenting Court of Appeals judge concluded that
defendant had not violated MCL 28.422(5).
the purchase of the pistol from the seller. The
seller may retain a copy of the license as a
record of the sale of the pistol. The licensee
shall return 2 copies of the license to the
licensing authority within 10 days following the
purchase of the pistol.
At the time of the facts giving rise to this case,5 MCL
28.421(d) defined “seller” as a person who “sells,
furnishes, loans, or gives a pistol to another person.” In
addition, MCL 28.42l(c) defined “purchaser” as one “who
receives a pistol from another person by purchase, gift, or
loan." A person who "knowingly sells" a pistol without
complying with MCL 28.422 is guilty of a misdemeanor. MCL
750.223(1).
In this case, there is no dispute that defendant was
the seller or that Epps, having a license to purchase the
pistol, selected the pistol and handed defendant the money
to pay for it. Mbreover, Epps filled out the required
forms indicating that he was the buyer of the pistol.
Because defendant complied with the plain and unambiguous
language of the statute, he committed no crime.6 we decline
to adopt the straw-man/sham transaction doctrine that
5 The Legislature has since amended MCL 28.421, but the
amendments do not affect the disposition of this case,
6 The fact that Epps may have ostensibly intended to
transfer the pistol to Little is of no consequence because
Little could have legally received the pistol as a gift or
by purchase if he obtained a proper license. MCL
28.422(3)(b).
federal courts apply when construing federal statutes
because our statute allows no such latitude. Because
defendant complied with the requirements of MCL 28.422(5),
he cannot be held to have violated the statute,
VI
Defendant fully complied with the licensing
requirements of MCL 28.422(5). Therefore, he did not
violate MCL 750.223(1). Accordingly, we reverse the
judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment
of the circuit court affirming dismissal. MCR 7.302(F)(1).
Maura D. Corrigan
Clifford w. Taylor
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ.
we would not dispose of this case by opinion per
curiam, but would grant leave to appeal.
Michael F. Cavanagh
Marilyn Kelly
S T A T E 0 F M I C H 1 G A N
SUPREME COURT
PEOPLE 0F THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v » No. l24532
GENERAL A. LANEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
wEAVER, J. (concurring).
I concur in the result of the opinion because, on the
basis of the facts before us, defendant complied with the
requirements of MCL 28.422(5) and no crime was committed.
Elizabeth A. weaver