Thank you.
Regarding the prosecuting attorney bringing up that he had carried the rifle and was not doing so for whatever reason is because of the way the brandishing law is written.
The only exceptions where one can "brandish" a firearm legally is in the following situations:
(a) A peace officer lawfully performing his or her duties as a peace officer.
(b) A person lawfully engaged in hunting.
(c) A person lawfully engaged in target practice.
(d) A person lawfully engaged in the sale, purchase, repair, or transfer of that firearm.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ec...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-234e
Since Sean did not meet any of the listed exempt persons/activities, this law can be used against him. Additionally, the only legal commentary we have regarding brandishing is Granholm's opinion that a pistol, carried in a holster outside of the clothing, does not constitute "brandishing". Sean does not meet this exception either. Basically, since there is an absence of case law regarding the charge, it is possible that a jury will agree with the charge. Basically, a very poorly written law has the possibility to be the ruin a young man's life. This law needs to be changed immediately. But, since this republican legislature is hell bent on passing legislation that lessons the ability to carry a firearm, good luck. To me, this REPUBLICAN legislature has been an enemy to gun owners.