Background
Michael Reed was adjudicated delinquent in 2014, while a juvenile, for conduct amounting to complicity to aggravated robbery with a firearm. In June 2025, police allegedly encountered him with bloodshot eyes, alcohol on his breath, and a loaded firearm on his person.
Reed was charged with possessing a weapon while intoxicated, carrying a concealed weapon, and having a weapon while under a disability arising from his juvenile adjudication. After the trial court rejected his Second Amendment challenges to the latter two charges, Reed pleaded no contest and was convicted on all counts. He appealed the concealed-carry and weapons-under-disability convictions but did not challenge the intoxication-related conviction.
The Court’s Holding
A divided panel held that Ohio could not constitutionally impose a total, presumptively permanent firearm disability on Reed solely because of his juvenile adjudication. The majority concluded that the violent, firearm-related conduct could support a presumption that Reed was dangerous for some period, but juvenile adjudication carries a presumption of rehabilitation and therefore could not justify disarmament lasting forever. Any such presumption must expire automatically or be removable as of right, and Ohio’s discretionary relief procedure under R.C. 2923.14 was insufficient.
The majority also rejected the State’s argument that Reed had to seek relief under R.C. 2923.14 before bringing his as-applied constitutional challenge. Neither the relevant statutes nor legislative intent imposed such an exhaustion requirement. The court reversed the weapons-under-disability conviction and remanded with instructions to dismiss that charge.
The court unanimously upheld the concealed-carry conviction because historical tradition permits Ohio to prohibit concealed weapons while leaving open carry legally available. Presiding Judge Zayas concurred on that issue but dissented from reversal of the weapons-under-disability conviction. She reasoned that R.C. 2923.14 and record sealing offered avenues to remove Reed’s disability, making it nonpermanent, and would have affirmed all three convictions.
Key Takeaways
- A violent juvenile adjudication involving a firearm may support a temporary presumption of dangerousness, but the majority held that it cannot support presumptively permanent disarmament.
- A discretionary opportunity to request restoration of firearm rights does not make a disability temporary when restoration is not available as of right.
- Reed was not required to exhaust Ohio’s statutory disability-relief process before asserting an as-applied Second Amendment defense, and Ohio could still punish concealed carry even though it could not totally disarm him.
Why It Matters
The decision extends the First District’s juvenile-adjudication analysis beyond nonviolent conduct, holding that even a violent juvenile offense cannot alone justify an indefinite firearm disability without automatic expiration or nondiscretionary restoration. At the same time, it preserves Ohio’s authority to regulate the manner of carrying firearms through its concealed-carry law.
The partial dissent highlights an unresolved disagreement over whether Ohio’s disability-relief and record-sealing mechanisms adequately prevent a firearm ban from being permanent.