People v. Brooks

Defendant was convicted of being an armed habitual criminal and sentenced to eight years. On appeal, defendant argued the sufficiency of the evidence and that the armed habitual criminal statute was unconstitutional as it applied to him because it violated the Second Amendment. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction even though it was contradictory and that the statute did not violate the constitution because the legislature’s ability to impose status-based restrictions disqualifying certain categories of people from possessing firearms is consistent with the national historical tradition of firearm regulation. (LAVIN and COGHLAN, concurring)