Originally Posted by
SteveS
If the law is clear, then the rule of lenity does not apply. ‘[t]he rule of lenity applies only in the circumstances of an ambiguity, or in the absence of any firm indication of legislative intent.’” People v Denio, 454 Mich 691, 700 n 12; 564 NW2d 13 (1997), quoting People v Wakeford, 418 Mich 95, 113-114; 341 NW2d 68 (1983). In People v Gardner, 482 Mich 41, 50; 753 NW2d 78 (2008 ), the Michigan Supreme Court stated:
"Our goal in construing a statute is “to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.” People v Pasha, 466 Mich 378, 382; 645 NW2d 275 (2002). The touchstone of legislative intent is the statute’s language. “If the statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, we assume that the Legislature intended its plain meaning and we enforce the statute as written.” People v Weeder, 469 Mich 493, 497; 674 NW2d 372 (2004). Accordingly, when statutory language is unambiguous, judicial construction is not required or permitted." Id.
The rule of lenity only applies if there is a conflict or the language in ambiguous. I think some "fear mongers" are concerned because they may wonder what the intent of the legislature was when this law passed and it does appear to make little sense that everyone has to register their guns except for residents that get a permit from another state. Take into account that the ultimate goal of all such rules is to ascertain and implement the legislative intent, even if the intent might appear in conflict with the literal language of the statute. People v Stoudemire, 429 Mich 262, 266; 414 NW2d 693 (1987). Also, statutes must be interpreted to avoid absurd consequences. Webster v Rotary Electric Steel Co, 321 Mich 526, 531; 33 NW2d 69 (1948 ).
I think a good argument can be made that supports the position stated in the OP. That being said, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concerns of people that may not share your opinion. I would also point out that this idea isn't new and that I haven't seen any other attorneys suggesting that people should do this. The reason being is stated above. Courts don't always interpret rules the same way.