Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG…Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

KROGER

Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Mask free in the gunshine state!
    Posts
    20,586

    Gun possession case backfires

    Gun possession case backfires

    Federal judge dismisses charges

    By Mark Johnson
    Traverse City Record Eagle
    October 26th. 2018

    TRAVERSE CITY — A U.S. District Court judge tossed charges against a local man accused of illegally collecting dozens of guns in what his attorney considers a rare federal court victory.

    A grand jury indicted Mark Andrew McMichael on two charges after investigators found dozens of firearms and thousands of bullets in his home. Law prohibits citizens previously committed to a mental institution from owning firearms and federal attorneys pointed to McMichael’s time spent at a Munson Medical Center mental health ward in 2014.

    McMichael’s attorney, Steven Dulan, argued the law applies only to those who were treated involuntarily. Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker of the U.S. District Court for the state’s western district sided with Dulan and dismissed the charges in a written opinion Oct. 5.

    "The Court is making no judgment on policy grounds about whether Mr. McMichael should, or should not, be permitted to possess firearms and ammunition," Jonker wrote. "The Court merely concludes as a matter of law that Mr. McMichael was not prohibited ... from possessing firearms or ammunition because he has never been committed to a mental institution."

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigators learned McMichael, a registered gun collector, possessed numerous firearms, despite his stay in the mental health facility.

    Officials searched his Grand Traverse County home Dec. 1 and found approximately 76 guns, some stowed between wall studs and ceiling rafters — including “AR-15 and AK-47 type semiautomatic rifles" — and more than 17,500 rounds of ammunition, according to court records.

    Investigators also found McMichael held a federal firearms collectors' license since 2007. He re-certified in May 2016 without indicating the 2014 commitment, court records indicate. But Jonker ruled he never was formally committed.

    Dulan said McMichael legally owned the firearms, but a grand jury and federal attorneys disagreed, citing his mental health history. Grand jurors indicted him on committed person in possession of firearms and ammunition and making a false statement in a firearms license application charges.

    The charges are tied to a 12-day hospitalization at Munson in May 2014 when two doctors determined McMichael needed to be committed to a mental health institution. One doctor diagnosed him with acute paranoia and schizophrenia. The other ruled he suffered from psychosis, court records indicate.

    Dulan previously challenged those diagnoses and considered them “tainted” because McMichael’s ex-wife spoke to the physicians prior to their rulings.

    One of the doctors recommended McMichael be transferred to Munson’s behavioral health services program. He elected to defer a court hearing on the matter and cooperated with the treatment and eventually officials discharged him, according to Jonker’s written ruling.

    Federal attorneys cited case law in arguing the incident exemplifies a mental health facility commitment. But the law fails to define “committed,” prompting both sides to cite additional case law, according to Jonker's ruling.

    The federal attorneys said the diagnoses from the two doctors were enough, while McMichael and Dulan argued a formal commitment must include an action by an authoritative body or board and due process, Jonker wrote.

    Nils Kessler, an assistant U.S. attorney assigned to the case, did not immediately return calls requesting comment.

    He previously argued McMichael’s treatment was involuntary, citing notes from medical personnel that appear to show McMichael acknowledging the treatment was against his will and repeatedly asking to leave.

    Jonker cited additional case law and ultimately agreed with Dulan.

    “I feel that justice prevailed,” Dulan said.

    He did not immediately know whether Kessler or other federal attorneys would appeal the dismissal. Dulan expects to record another victory should they choose to.

    Pursuing legal action against McMichael’s ex-wife also remains a possibility, Dulan said.

    For now he and McMichael plan to celebrate the dismissed charges — a rare occurrence in federal court, Dulan said.

    “Statistically, this was an unlikely event,” Dulan said.

  2. #2
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    22,562
    This is a very important step in the legal process.

    It might help to clear the path for our veterans that want to get treatment for PTSD or other issues, yet are afraid of losing their rights in a post treatment investigation. It should also put a damper on some of these 'AT RISK" or "RED FLAG" laws.


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  3. #3
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Due South of Detroit
    Posts
    3,879
    Good job Steve!
    Washtenaw Sportsman's Club member
    NRA Certified RSO (Thanks MGO)
    NRA Member

  4. #4
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    sw michigan
    Posts
    5,095
    There lies my concern with widening the mental health net when it comes to prohibiting an individual from gun ownership. The argument for, gets bantered around fast and loose, to make the public feel "safe". It's too easy for it to be abused.
    Happy for the win, well done.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter