State v. Hodges

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals of Ohio considered whether Ohio Revised Code 2923.13(A)(3), which prohibits certain persons convicted of drug-related felonies from possessing firearms, violates the Second Amendment. The court held that the statute is constitutional on its face and as applied to nonviolent drug traffickers generally, but reversed and remanded because the record lacked factual findings necessary to evaluate Hodges’s individualized as-applied challenge. The court directed the trial court to make factual findings concerning whether Hodges remains dangerous.

Holdings

1. R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) is constitutional on its face because its prohibition on firearm possession by persons convicted of drug-trafficking offenses is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.
2. R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) is constitutional as applied to nonviolent drug traffickers generally, but an individualized as-applied challenge requires factual consideration of whether the particular defendant remains dangerous.
3. The trial court erred by resolving the as-applied challenge without sworn testimony, stipulated facts, or factual findings concerning Hodges's dangerousness; the matter must be remanded for factual findings on the record.

Questions Presented

1. Whether R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), which prohibits persons convicted of certain drug-related felonies from possessing firearms, is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
2. Whether R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to a nonviolent drug-trafficking felon.
3. Whether the trial court could resolve Hodges's individualized as-applied challenge without sworn testimony, stipulated facts, or factual findings concerning his dangerousness.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded