Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that R.C. 2923.15, which prohibits carrying or using a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, is not unconstitutional as applied to an intoxicated person carrying a firearm in the home. Applying a two-step Second Amendment framework, the court assumed the statute regulated protected activity but upheld it under intermediate scrutiny because it substantially advances the important governmental interest in preventing firearm-related harm caused by intoxication. The court affirmed the judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether R.C. 2923.15(A), which prohibits carrying or using a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or a drug of abuse, violates the Second Amendment as applied to an intoxicated person carrying a firearm in his home.
- What analytical framework Ohio courts should use to evaluate Second Amendment challenges to firearm regulations.
- Whether R.C. 2923.15(A) violates Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution.
Holdings
- The two-step framework used by the lead opinion is the appropriate test for Second Amendment challenges to firearm regulations: first, determine whether the challenged regulation burdens activity outside the Second Amendment's historical scope; if it reaches the second step, apply heightened means-end scrutiny calibrated to the burden on the core right.
- R.C. 2923.15(A) is subject to intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny because it imposes, at most, a slight burden on the Second Amendment right and does not come close to the core right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
- R.C. 2923.15(A) is constitutional as applied to Weber, an intoxicated person carrying a firearm in his home.
- The court declined to decide whether R.C. 2923.15(A) violates Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution because Weber made only a passing argument and did not develop an argument based on the provision's text, history, or Ohio precedent.
Key quotations
“We hold that it does not. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals.” (¶ 1)
“R.C. 2923.15 is valid under the intermediate-scrutiny test; the statute does not violate the Second Amendment.” (¶ 47)
“For the reasons explained above, we affirm the judgment of the Twelfth District Court of Appeals. Judgment affirmed.” (¶ 56)
Factual background
At approximately 4:00 a.m., Frederick Weber was highly intoxicated and holding a shotgun inside his home. His wife called 9-1-1, and responding officers observed Weber with slurred speech, glassy and bloodshot eyes, instability, and an inability to complete field-sobriety instructions. Weber admitted that he was drunk; although the shotgun was unloaded when officers recovered it, Weber stated that he had been unloading it to wipe it down.
Procedural history
After a bench trial, Weber was convicted of carrying or using a firearm while under the influence of alcohol, in violation of R.C. 2923.15(A). The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute survived intermediate scrutiny. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted three propositions of law and affirmed the appellate judgment.