Background
William A. Ball was indicted for having weapons while under disability (R.C. 2923.13) and improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle. The disability predicate was Ball’s 2010 juvenile adjudication for felonious assault — an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony offense of violence. Ball moved to dismiss the weapons-under-disability charge, arguing that R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) was unconstitutional as applied to him under the Second Amendment, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.
The trial court denied Ball’s motion. Ball then pleaded no contest and was sentenced to community control for one year, preserving his constitutional challenge for appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District affirmed, applying the two-step Bruen framework. Under Bruen, if the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court assumed without deciding that Ball’s conduct was covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text and proceeded to the historical analysis.
The court found that the State met its burden of demonstrating that R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) is consistent with the historical tradition of disarming individuals who have committed serious violent offenses. The court cited historical analogues including colonial-era laws disarming persons deemed dangerous and nineteenth-century statutes restricting firearm possession by convicted felons. The court emphasized that Ball’s predicate offense — felonious assault — was a serious violent crime regardless of whether it occurred when he was a juvenile, and that the historical tradition of disarming dangerous individuals supports the application of the disability statute in this context.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio’s weapons-under-disability statute, R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), survives an as-applied Second Amendment challenge under Bruen when the predicate offense is a serious violent crime, even if it was a juvenile adjudication rather than an adult conviction.
- The State bears the burden of demonstrating a historical tradition of firearm regulation in as-applied challenges to weapons statutes post-Bruen.
- Courts may look to colonial- and founding-era surety and disarmament laws as historical analogues supporting modern felon-in-possession restrictions.
Why It Matters
Post-Bruen Second Amendment challenges to Ohio’s weapons-under-disability statute continue to proliferate. This decision is significant because it addresses a unique wrinkle: whether a juvenile adjudication (as opposed to an adult conviction) can serve as a valid predicate disability. Defense attorneys bringing Bruen challenges should note that Ohio appellate courts are consistently finding historical support for disarming individuals adjudicated or convicted of serious violent offenses. The decision adds to the growing body of Ohio appellate law interpreting Bruen’s historical-tradition test.