Understanding Ohio’s Weapon Laws – the Post-Bruen Ripple Effect

This post was copied with permission from it’s author.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Gunset Training Group or its affiliates.

Click HERE to view the original post on the GunSnobbery Blog

If you’ve been following my series of articles on Ohio’s weapon laws, you may remember that I’ve mentioned the Supreme Court of the United States Bruen decision many times. The gist of the comments about Bruen revolve around the fact that Bruen is going to significantly change firearm laws across the country and we will see the ripple effects for years to come. Two weeks ago, the (Ohio) Second District Court of Appeals released their decision in State v. Matosky. This decision impacts what it means to be a “qualifying adult” under Ohio’s “Constitutional Carry” law. Don’t remember what that means? Check out this article and come back.

A brief background on the Matosky case – a 20 year old who was not otherwise prohibited from owning a pistol was caught with a loaded pistol in her vehicle. She was charged with CCW and Improper Handling of a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle. Both of which are felonies. Matosky challenged the constitutionality of these laws. Matosky’s argument? Since she was a law abiding citizen and not otherwise prohibited from owning the pistol in question, the age based restriction of Ohio’s laws is unconstitutional. Confused? Well, this ultimately revolves around the the fact that under Ohio law you have to be 21 years of age or older to get a concealed handgun licenses or be 21 years of age or older to fall under the definition of a “qualifying adult” which allows someone to carry a concealed handgun without a license.

The Second District’s decision? They agreed with Matosky and stated the age based restriction of Ohio’s CCW law and Improper Handling law was unconstitutional in light of Bruen. I would encourage you to click the link for the decision I posted above and read it. It is actually pretty fascinating and talks about the historical significance of the age of 21 and how we ended up using such an arbitrary number. It also talks about the time period around our nation’s founding and how that applies to this law.

Why is this important? Well, under Bruen, the lower courts have been told that when reviewing firearms related laws they have to keep two things in mind. First, if the 2nd Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, then the Constitution “presumptively protects that conduct”. Second, any regulation the government tries to impose on that conduct must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”.

In the Matosky case, the Second District stated that there was no “historical tradition” that justified prohibiting 18, 19 and 20 year olds from carrying concealed pistols.

So what does all of this mean? Well, this decision is only binding within the jurisdiction of the Second District Court of Appeals. Which means that police in counties that fall within the Second District Court of Appeals (Montgomery, Greene, Clark, Miami, Darke and Champaign) cannot arrest an 18, 19 or 20 year old for violating the CCW law or Improper Handling law so long as the only thing that would have prohibited that person from being legally carrying that pistol is the age based restriction. In plain terms, if you are 18, 19 or 20 and you would otherwise be able to obtain a Concealed Handgun License or be considered a “qualifying adult” if you were 21, then you can carry a concealed pistol. And as long as you aren’t violating some other provision of law (like being in a prohibited location). Having said that, this does not mean an 18, 19 or 20 year old can carry everywhere in the State. Different District Courts of Appeal may have a different opinion. Like the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in State v. Reed. Reed was a 19 year old who was charged with CCW for carrying a loaded pistol. The First District (Cincinnati area) upheld the age based restriction in Ohio law.

Ultimately, the Ohio Supreme Court is going to have to weigh in on the age based restriction since the lower courts are disagreeing on the issue. But for now, an otherwise law-abiding 20 year old who drives from Dayton to Cincinnati with a loaded pistol in his car is fine in one county (Montgomery), in limbo but presumably in trouble when they drive through the next two counties (Warren and Butler) and then absolutely in trouble when they leave Butler County and cross into Hamilton County.

I want to stress this – I am not encouraging 18, 19 and 20 year olds to run right out and start carrying. Think hard about it. Why? I guarantee most cops impacted by this decision don’t know anything about it. It’s too new. And there is no mechanism in place for rapid dissemination of this information to the agencies and officers impacted by it. I found out about it by coincidence. And I keep up with case law.

Looking into my crystal ball I see where this decision will lead to other age based restriction challenges to other sections of Ohio’s weapon laws.

Isn’t the law great?

Stay tuned for who knows what is next…..