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
Author’s note: this is part 5 in a series of educational posts I am going to write about State of Ohio and federal weapon and firearm laws. Part 1 can be found here. This post does not offer legal advice. I am not a lawyer. I am a Certified Firearm Specialist through the International Firearm Specialist Academy and the State of Ohio certifies me to teach Ohio’s weapon laws in the Basic Police Academy. I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying federal law and Ohio’s laws in 30 years on the job. More than anything, this series of posts is an attempt to educate people on portions of the law and to show them where they can find the laws so that they can educate themselves further. Please consult with an attorney who specializes in firearms and weapons law if you have questions that require a legal opinion. If you are a law enforcement officer, check with your jurisdiction’s legal counsel for guidance. And remember, not all attorneys are created equal. And keep in mind that laws, interpretations of laws and definitions change. So what was current at the time I published this article may have changed over time.
If you have not read Constitutional Carry parts 1, 2 and 3, I suggest you go do so before continuing. Things will make more sense if you do. In the last article we started talking about parts of Ohio Revised Code 2923.13. We will finish discussing 2923.13 in this article and wrap up with the final section of 2923.111(A)(2)(c).
(4) – so when does someone have a drug dependency or is in danger of drug dependence? Well, Ohio Revised Code 3719.011 answers that for us.
How about chronic alcoholism? Ohio Revised Code 5119.01 has the answer that the Ohio Supreme Court used in State v. Tomlin in 1992:
Although multiple drug related charges could be used as evidence of a drug dependency problem, I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary. There just needs to be credible evidence showing that someone has a drug problem. I can think of several ways to substantiate that. The same goes for alcoholism. I’ve know many people suffering from alcoholism over the years and some of them did not have a single criminal charge to go with it. Ultimately, it’s a question for a Judge or a Jury. If you have questions about this, consult an attorney who specializes in Ohio weapon laws.
(5) – the last section of 2923.13(A) is all about mental health. The definitions referenced in (5) are long so I won’t post them here, but you can read them here. There really isn’t much to add beyond what was discussed in 18 USC 922(g)(4) in this this article. As a short reminder, this section refers to people who have been found mentally incompetent through the judicial process and NOT involuntarily committed for observation purposes by a law enforcement officer, physician, etc.
The last part of the definition of “qualifying adult” is found here. What is 2923.125? Well, it deals with getting an Ohio Concealed Handgun License (CHL). Under Ohio’s CCW law, there are certain things that will prevent you from getting a CHL, but won’t prevent you from legally owning firearms. (D)(1) covers both things that prevent legal ownership of firearms and things that just prevent you from getting a CHL. We have discussed some of these before since they are covered in either 18 USC 922 or 2923.13. I’ll use the subsection I’m discussing at the beginning for clarity.
(a) – legal resident of the United States. Pretty self-explanatory.
(b) – must be at least 21 years old.
(c) – not a fugitive from justice (discussed previously).
(d) – must not be under indictment or charged with several different types of crimes:
- Felony of any sort
- A drug offense under Ohio Revised Code chapters 2925, 3719 or 4729
- A misdemeanor offense of violence (see 2901.01(A)(9))
- 2923.14 – Negligent assault
- 2923.1211 – Falsifying a CHL or possession of a suspended/revoked CHL
(e) – has not been convicted or pled guilty to:
- Felony of any sort
- A drug offense under Ohio Revised Code chapters 2925, 3719 or 4729
- 2903.13 – Assault (when victim was a police officer)
- Any other misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year
(f) – must not have been convicted within the last three years of violations of:
- Misdemeanor of violence
- Possess a revoked or suspended CHL
(g) – must not have been convicted within the last five years of 2 or more violations of:
- 2903.13 – Assault
- 2903.14 – Negligent Assault
(h) – must not have been convicted within the last ten years of 2921.33 – Resisting Arrest
(i) – a mentally ill or mentally incompetent person that has been adjudicated as such (previously discussed)
(j) – not currently subject to a civil protection order, a temporary protection order, or a protection order issued by a court of another state. You will notice this does not have the “intimate partner” language that 922(g)(8) has.
(m) – not currently subject to a CHL suspension (includes other states)
(p) – deals with legal (yes, legal) aliens. Some non-citizens can own firearms.
(q) – must not have been dishonorably discharged from the military – (previously discussed)
(s) – must not have been convicted or pled guilty to domestic violence violation of section 2919.25 of the Revised Code or a similar violation in another state. You will notice it is very specific about the section, unlike the federal law in 922(g)(9).
So there you have it, we have now discussed all of the different aspects of how someone is considered to be a “qualifying adult”. Let me simplify it – to be a qualifying adult, you must be eligible to get a CHL. If you cannot get a CHL, you are not a “qualifying adult”. If you are a “qualifying adult”, then many of the weapon related restrictions in the Ohio Revised Code do not apply to you. The Ohio Revised Code makes it pretty clear that unless it is specified otherwise, a qualifying adult “shall be deemed to have been issued a valid concealed handgun license.”
So why get a Concealed Handgun License if you don’t need to? What are the pros and cons of using the permitless carry law vs. carrying on a CHL? The answer to that is subjective and may be different from one person to another. I’m going to keep personal feelings and politics out of the article and about what I consider to be the “tangible” pros and cons of carrying as a “qualifying adult”.
Pros:
- Does not require training
- Does not require a fee
- Does not require renewal every few years
Cons:
- Does not help if you travel to another state if the state requires a CHL
- You still have to do the background check and (potentially) deal with any delays when buying a firearm
- Prohibits you from carrying a loaded firearm into a school zone
- Can result in longer detention times when stopped by the police
The last two cons are the most significant and would be the reasons I would keep a valid Ohio CHL if I wasn’t in law enforcement. I will spend more time talking about school zones in a future article, but the bottom line is this – federal law comes into play as well state law when we talk about carrying in school zones and to comply with state law, you have to be in compliance with federal law. Which you cannot do if you don’t have a CHL (see 18 USC 922(q)(2)(B)(ii)).
Which leaves us with the last Con. Take a minute and make sure you read the picture I posted above very carefully. This section 2923.111(C) was in the original version of SB215, but was removed from the version that was passed and signed into law. To me, that is a huge problem for people who are carrying as a “qualifying adult”. I’ll use a traffic stop example to explain why it is a problem.
Let’s say I stop you for speeding and when I walk up to the car I see something gun related in the back seat of the car. This prompts me to ask you if you have any firearms in the car. Since you are a law abiding person and know you have to answer that question honestly (we’ll talk more about 2923.16 later), you answer “yes”, you have a loaded pistol, and I inquire as to where the pistol is at. Which leads me to disarm you (a theoretical act, since I didn’t disarm people for minor stuff) while I write you a ticket. And here is where things can go sideways. State law starts with the premise that it is illegal to have a loaded pistol in the vehicle. There are; however, exceptions to the law if people fall under one of those specific exceptions. Those exceptions include off duty law enforcement and people who have been issued a CHL (there are other exceptions we will talk about later). Proving you are off duty law enforcement or are in possession of a CHL is pretty simple – you hand them your ID or CHL. You may be thinking – “But I don’t need a CHL because I’m a qualifying adult!!!!” Ok. Prove it. As the law is written (since they removed (C)), I can, for arguments sake, continue to detain you while I try to figure out whether or not you are, in fact, a “qualifying adult”. This could take a while since it involves running criminal history searches and trying to figure out all of the things we discussed in the last few articles while we are both sitting on the side of the road. See the problem? Removing the original section (C) was a mistake. If I had to guess, it was a compromise to appease groups like the FOP. Although I’m an FOP member, I’m usually at odds (start at the 13:00 mark) with them when it comes to weapon laws.
As I wrap this up, let me leave you with this – “Constitutional Carry” should mean that anyone who is legally allowed to possess a firearm is legally allowed to carry it. As you can see, that isn’t the case. Ohio prohibits certain people from carrying concealed even though they may legally possess the firearm. So the way I look at it, “constitutional carry” should not be used to describe this Ohio law. If you have to qualify for a CHL to take advantage of this law, it is permitless carry. Whether you choose to get a CHL or not, please make sure you study the law. If I wasn’t a law enforcement officer, I would maintain a CHL until the legislature puts (C) back into the law. In the next article, I’ll jump into 2923.12 – Carrying Concealed Weapons.
Authors end note: I cannot stress this enough – the Bruen decision has changed the face of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence and we will be seeing the ripple effects of this decision for years to come. I would not be surprised if we see more legal challenges to the drug dependent and alcoholic portions of the law discussed in the article. Here is a good article about Bruen.