Background
Victor Alan Pate III was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2923.12(A)(2), a fourth-degree felony. Pate was 19 years old at the time of the alleged offense. He moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him under the Second Amendment.
The trial court initially denied the motion but granted it on reconsideration based on the Second District’s decision in State v. Matosky, which held the statute unconstitutional as applied to a 20-year-old defendant because the relevant age-based restriction was inconsistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The State appealed the dismissal.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed, holding that R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) was unconstitutional as applied to Pate. Because Pate was 19, he did not meet the statutory definition of a “qualifying adult,” which requires a person to be at least 21 and thereby permits qualifying adults to carry concealed handguns without a license.
The court explained that the State raised the same arguments it had made in Matosky. Following Matosky under the doctrine of stare decisis—and noting that it had also applied that precedent in two subsequent cases—the court concluded that the trial court properly dismissed Pate’s charge. The court emphasized that it would continue following Matosky unless the Supreme Court of Ohio directed otherwise.
Key Takeaways
- The court held R.C. 2923.12(A)(2) unconstitutional as applied specifically to 19-year-old Pate.
- The decision followed Matosky’s as-applied ruling involving a 20-year-old defendant; it did not announce a categorical rule for every person under 21.
- The court rejected the State’s renewed historical-tradition arguments because they were identical to those addressed in Matosky.
Why It Matters
Pate confirms that the Second District continues to apply Matosky when reviewing the statute’s age-based application to young-adult defendants. It also underscores the binding practical effect of circuit precedent within the district unless the Supreme Court of Ohio provides contrary direction.
The opinion is deliberately narrow: it resolves the constitutionality of the concealed-carry charge as applied to Pate and does not state that he satisfied every non-age requirement within Ohio’s definition of a qualifying adult.