Whether the Michigan legislature's obligation and duty to create a Second Amendment Michigan statute violates the separation of powers principle and is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment

No question identified. : *uozasanb ey parody 3anop yOqAIST sp pue aIeAISTIEy SUL INVDIHOIN NI S81000 LI SV HIdIONI¥d SHIMOd JO NOLLVEVdYS BHL JO NOLIVIOIA V GNV SsaNuNOWA Od IQA ONISE (ZTE*0S/ TOW) ALMIVIS ALVIS LWAL INOHLIM WaGYNN FTYOGG GNOOES JO SINANATA GHL ANISH QL AQVIOIGAC NVOTHOIN 3HL OL ALNd IVHL @LVOIGaY @MNIVISTON1 NVOIEDIN GHL NVO YO HACUNWN BHUSAG GNOOAS JO SINGWHTE HL SaNIaId LVHL SINLVIS WaQUON ‘waNoUG GNOOGS NVOIHOIN V ALVaYD OL FUNLVISION] ALVIS AHL 40 ALNG GNV NOLLVOIIG0 JHL LI SI °AI *uoTasenb 3ueqazoduy sty azensue PThoys Janop suweadns sn styL «SAA, PaTeaste yoo aAMIA7 YAO sn eUL a SGA, Petansie qan0p JoTTISsTG Sn PUue VyeAysT Fey STL 2 1HH XTINVSSEONI GAVH SINGCHOMd S,JaN0O aNRdNS SN SIHL SW AUNNI UO THA OL INGINI N¥ GUIRY ¥waCgNW ANV SdOd GNV GASvaodd SHL SYACNI YO TYDI OL INSINI ANV dO BONRCTAT ON SI SMGHL NAHM GTaHdN Je OL NOLEOIANOO (3au0ad PUZ 20 4ST) UAGUNN ANV UOd ZEISS Il Sl IL *uoyasenb quejaeduy syyy Jaaste pynoys yanop sueadns sq STUL . n'SHA, Patanste yoo 37N0azD 439 sn UL a°SHA,, Pateaste 33n0p 7O;23s7q ple eIeIIsySey suL, — — _ _ 2QVE_GASVIOdd ABL Ly LOHS SHL-GaaLd NGHL Gasvaaa GHL 30 VaH SHE IV XTioaaid NNO GHL GaINIOd GNV GaNIV SAWWC WANOLLLIGa GaLILISAL SHSSNLIMAAT GHL ONIGNIG ATAVIGLISACNN AG 5 SuINOALISaL uOOdY SHL ONLINASTNATUSTN GNV ONLLWISSIN ATaSIVa TV voo LInoUID GNV. 18N0) IOIUISIG so “SIveISIOW @L_ASL_INGGIQOV NV SVM HIVad GiSvd0ad SHL IVAL GNV ‘aasvaoad SHL ZV NNO GHL GaINIOd ¥O GAWIV WHAGN SUWWC WANOLad GAILISAL HOVA AGHL NGHM ‘Gaia SVM LOHS ZHL NGHM Nno GHL aH SAWVE WANOLGd MOH ONLLVAISNOWIC N3HM ONITIGD WOON LUNOD AHL GEYBOL GINTOI SUAONTA UIGHL HLIM GULATISAL HOVA ASHL NGHM GaSVIIGd SHL JO HLVGG SHL OL SASSINLIMAAS @aYHL XINO HL 40 ANONLISAL SNOWINVNA GHL INGSHYASUSIW ATALVUAGIIGC GNV XTINVLVIE OL GAMOTIV SIVaddV 40 LIMUID HL9 NV BOGAN LYNCO IOTAISIG SN ‘aLvALSIOWN “IWadaa V SI “IT *Goy3senb yuezazodwy S743 AeMsue PTMoYs Janop suaadng sn STYL WOK, PazeASUe VOD IFNOIED UA sf euL ; a ON, PFeS SJeAIsPZey y Yano IOTAISTG SN SUL CONIGHION LUND ALVIS ARL dO NOLIOIGSTaNC AHL JONTTIVED OL INGOGNE ALVES OL IOGPENS MANOSTUd ALVIS V GAMOTIV HOG ASHL NAHM SSHTONINVGN GaYAGNTY NMG DAV (946T) LEOE 99 S 96 §S9% Sh 8Zy “TiaNOd 4 SNOLS GNV (¥)(P)¥SZZ § OSM Bz WaCAV-da LVL aauaG GHL OL LHOLY SNd40O.SVaaVH (Z)6 § I FIOLINW NOLLALLISNOO SN AHL GaLveaOSLAd (T)(P) "S72 § OSA 8% (WdGHV) IV ISTYOUMAL ALIWNGd HLVAC SALLOGAIS-LINV GHL SV 8O SIRDIN-INGKONGKY AIX ‘IIIX “ITIA ‘IA NOLIALIISNOO SAIVES GALINN SIH JO NOLLVIOLA WV OL WANOLLLIGA GHL GaIOAENS NOLIOIGSIUN® 40 OVI ,SLNNCO AIWIS SHL SOaTIv (¥HNOSIUd LVIS) MONOLLLIGd HHL aI MALATY SNdUCO SWAGVH ONTUNC SONIGAIOONd LHNOD ALVIS SHL NI IOamqd IWNOLIOIGSIME ¥ dO FONTWENOOO SRL ASIVY OL YANOSIYd BIWIS V UOd TIGISSIWMd II SI *1 GaiNGSaud SNOLESANO The US 6th Circuit COA ignored the question. This US Supreme Court should answer the important question. v. IN SPITE OF FARETTA v CALIFORNIA, 422 US 806; 95 S Ct 2525 (1975); MCDOWELL v US, ~ 484 US 980; 108 S Ct 478 (1988) AND EVERY SINGLE US CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ALL MANDATING THAT IN ORDER FOR A WAIVER OF THE RIGHT TO ANY COUNSEL TO BE VALID THERE MUST _ BE EVIDENCE OF AN IN COURT COLLOQUY BEIWEEN THE COURT AND DEFENDANT OR APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF THE WAIVER SHOWING THAT THE COURT WARNED THE DEFENDANT OR APPELLATE ABOUT THE DANCERS AND DYSADVANTAGES OF SELF REPRESENTATION, IS IT PERMISSIBLE FOR THE MAGISTRATE, US DISTRICT COURT AND US 6TH CIRCUIT COA TO HOLD NO SUCH IN OPEN COURT COLLOQUY HAS TO OCCUR BETWEEN THE COURT AND THE DEFENDANT OR APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF THE WAIVER WHEREAT THE COURT IS WARNING THE DEFENDANT OR APPELLANT ABOUT THE DANGERS AND DISADVANTAGES OF SELF REPRESENTATION AND THAT NO SUCH WARNING IS NECESSARY FOR THE WAVIER TO BE VALID? The Magistratye and US District Court answered "YES." The US 6th Circuit QOA answered "YES." This US Supreme Court should answer the important question. VI. IS A MAGISTRATE AND US DISTRICT COURT REQUIRED TO GIVE THE 28 USC § 2254(e)(1) PRESUMPTION OF COR