2020 Ohio 6832
Ohio2020Background
- At ~4:00 a.m., Frederick Weber was highly intoxicated inside his home and was observed holding a shotgun; his wife called 9-1-1. Deputies arrived, ordered Weber to drop the gun, and observed signs of heavy intoxication (slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, inability to complete sobriety tests).
- Weber was charged under Ohio R.C. 2923.15(A) (no person while under the influence shall carry or use any firearm), tried in a bench trial, convicted, and sentenced (jail suspended, community control, fine); the Twelfth District affirmed.
- Weber raised as-applied Second Amendment and Ohio-constitutional challenges; the Ohio Supreme Court accepted review of three propositions of law focused on the proper standard and whether the statute is unconstitutional as applied in the home.
- The majority applied the two-step Second Amendment framework used by many federal circuits, assumed arguendo that the statute burdens conduct within the Amendment’s scope, proceeded to step two, and applied intermediate scrutiny.
- The court held R.C. 2923.15 constitutional as applied: the law furthers an important government interest (preventing harms from guns + intoxication) and is substantially related to that interest; concurrence and dissent disagreed on analytic methodology (text-history approach vs. remand).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2923.15 is unconstitutional as applied to an intoxicated person carrying a firearm in his home | Weber: statute infringes Second Amendment protection to keep and bear arms in the home; as-applied challenge should prevail | State: statute targets dangerous conduct (intoxicated carrying/using) and is a permissible regulation substantially related to preventing harm | Held constitutional as applied; statute survives intermediate scrutiny because it furthers an important interest and is substantially related to that interest |
| Proper test for Second Amendment challenges | Weber: strict scrutiny or an absolute right to arms in the home (no intoxication disqualification) | State: adopt the two-step framework (history/scope then means-ends scrutiny) | Court adopts two-step framework; applies intermediate scrutiny here (but one justice would apply text-history-tradition approach) |
| Does being in the home change the analysis (heightened protection)? | Weber: home is core of Second Amendment; heightened (strict) scrutiny required | State: intoxication removes the person from the protected core; danger to others remains inside the home | Majority: home does not immunize intoxicated handling; statute imposes at most a slight burden on the core and so intermediate scrutiny applies |
| Ohio Constitution (Art. I, § 4) claim | Weber: also violates state constitutional right to bear arms | State: briefed federal claim; Court: Weber provided no distinct state-constitutional argument | Court declines to decide separate Ohio-constitutional issue due to lack of developed argument |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects individual right to possess and carry weapons for self-defense; rights are not unlimited)
- McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (Second Amendment incorporated against the states via Fourteenth Amendment)
- Stimmel v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 198 (6th Cir. 2018) (describes two-step Second Amendment framework used by many courts)
- United States v. Marzzarella, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (step-one inquiry whether regulation falls outside historical scope)
- United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny appropriate where law does not severely burden the core right)
- United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2010) (upholding prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful drug users under intermediate scrutiny)
- Tyler v. Hillsdale Cty. Sheriff’s Dept., 837 F.3d 678 (6th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discusses history, burden analysis, and standards of scrutiny in Second Amendment cases)