14 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2024–2026 14 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Thackergreen2 sentences2025If it does, then “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” and the court must proceed to the second part of the test to determine whether the State has rebutted this presumption by showing that “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. {¶ 13} Turning to the first part of the Bruen test, we accept the holding from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024) that the Second Amendment’s text “presumptively protects” a felon’s right to “possess a gun.” Id. at 649 ; see also 2025If it does, then “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” and the court must proceed to the second part of the test to determine whether the State has rebutted this presumption by showing that “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. {¶ 13} Turning to the first part of the Bruen test, we accept the holding from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024) that the Second Amendment’s text “presumptively protects” a felon’s right to “possess a gun.” Id. at 649 ; see also | 1 | 2 |
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruengreen2 sentences2025“For example, if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations.” Id. {¶ 14} The “Bruen analysis is therefore, at its core, a comparative endeavor. 2025It compares the current ‘how and why’ against the historic ‘how and why’ to determine whether the government’s modern firearm restrictions comport with the Nation’s tradition of Second Amendment regulation.” Stonewall, 2025-Ohio-4974 at ¶ 50 (1st Dist.) (Kinsley, P.J., dissenting), citing Bruen, 597 U.S. at 29 . | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Erick Williamsgreen2 sentences2025If it does, then “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” and the court must proceed to the second part of the test to determine whether the State has rebutted this presumption by showing that “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. {¶ 13} Turning to the first part of the Bruen test, we accept the holding from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024) that the Second Amendment’s text “presumptively protects” a felon’s right to “possess a gun.” Id. at 649 ; see also 2025If it does, then “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” and the court must proceed to the second part of the test to determine whether the State has rebutted this presumption by showing that “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. {¶ 13} Turning to the first part of the Bruen test, we accept the holding from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024) that the Second Amendment’s text “presumptively protects” a felon’s right to “possess a gun.” Id. at 649 ; see also | 1 | 2 |
State v. Stormsgreen2 sentences2025See Storms at ¶ 26 (holding that the trial court erred by failing to apply Bruen and remanding the cause to the trial court to conduct a Bruen analysis). 2025See Storms at ¶ 26 (holding that the trial court erred by failing to apply Bruen and remanding the cause to the trial court to conduct a Bruen analysis). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Parkergreen2 sentences2025See Latham at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Parker, 2023-Ohio-2127, ¶ 20 (5th Dist.). {¶ 11} In Latham, we considered an “as-applied” challenge to the constitutionality of a different R.C. 2923.111 “qualifying adult” requirement -- one that prohibited the defendant from exercising his right to open carry based on a single misdemeanor drug conviction -- and we affirmed dismissal of the indictment based on the trial court’s application of the Bruen standard to facts that were set forth in the record. {¶ 12} Here, Robinson challenged the constitutionality of the charges based on the facts of his case, a 2025See Latham at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Parker, 2023-Ohio-2127, ¶ 20 (5th Dist.). {¶ 11} In Latham, we considered an “as-applied” challenge to the constitutionality of a different R.C. 2923.111 “qualifying adult” requirement -- one that prohibited the defendant from exercising his right to open carry based on a single misdemeanor drug conviction -- and we affirmed dismissal of the indictment based on the trial court’s application of the Bruen standard to facts that were set forth in the record. {¶ 12} Here, Robinson challenged the constitutionality of the charges based on the facts of his case, a | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Steven Duartegreen2 sentences2025If it does, then “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” and the court must proceed to the second part of the test to determine whether the State has rebutted this presumption by showing that “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. {¶ 13} Turning to the first part of the Bruen test, we accept the holding from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024) that the Second Amendment’s text “presumptively protects” a felon’s right to “possess a gun.” Id. at 649 ; see also 2025If it does, then “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct,” and the court must proceed to the second part of the test to determine whether the State has rebutted this presumption by showing that “the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. {¶ 13} Turning to the first part of the Bruen test, we accept the holding from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Williams, 113 F.4th 637 (6th Cir. 2024) that the Second Amendment’s text “presumptively protects” a felon’s right to “possess a gun.” Id. at 649 ; see also | 1 | 1 |
Rivera v. Petition for Relief From Firearm Disabilitygreen2 sentences2025Rivera v. Petition for Relief from Disability, 2025-Ohio-2225, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.); see also Williams at 661 (noting as-applied challenges provide “felons the chance required by the Second Amendment to make an individualized showing of qualification to keep and bear arms” as an alternative to an administrative scheme). {¶ 25} Based on the foregoing, we find McKenzie’s first assignment of error well- taken, and reverse and remand the matter for hearing or stipulations of fact so that the trial court might apply the test articulated in Bruen. {¶ 26} Because of our resolution of McKenzie’s first ass 2025Rivera v. Petition for Relief from Disability, 2025-Ohio-2225, ¶ 19 (8th Dist.); see also Williams at 661 (noting as-applied challenges provide “felons the chance required by the Second Amendment to make an individualized showing of qualification to keep and bear arms” as an alternative to an administrative scheme). {¶ 25} Based on the foregoing, we find McKenzie’s first assignment of error well- taken, and reverse and remand the matter for hearing or stipulations of fact so that the trial court might apply the test articulated in Bruen. {¶ 26} Because of our resolution of McKenzie’s first ass | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stonewallgreen1 sentence2025It compares the current ‘how and why’ against the historic ‘how and why’ to determine whether the government’s modern firearm restrictions comport with the Nation’s tradition of Second Amendment regulation.” Stonewall, 2025-Ohio-4974 at ¶ 50 (1st Dist.) (Kinsley, P.J., dissenting), citing Bruen, 597 U.S. at 29 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Edell Jacksongreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., United States v. Gay, 98 F.4th 843 (7th Cir. 2024) (upholding application of 922(g)(1) primarily based on Heller dicta, without foreclosing the possibility of as-applied challenges); United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024); Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), vacated, __ U.S. __, 144 S.Ct. 2708 (2024);3 United States v. Canada, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30900 , at *3-4 (4th Cir. Dec. 6, 2024) (holding, without substantive analysis, that 922(g)(1) has a plainly legitimate sweep that would include individuals “convicted of a drive-by-shooting, carjacking, ar 2024See, e.g., United States v. Gay, 98 F.4th 843 (7th Cir. 2024) (upholding application of 922(g)(1) primarily based on Heller dicta, without foreclosing the possibility of as-applied challenges); United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024); Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), vacated, __ U.S. __, 144 S.Ct. 2708 (2024);3 United States v. Canada, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30900 , at *3-4 (4th Cir. Dec. 6, 2024) (holding, without substantive analysis, that 922(g)(1) has a plainly legitimate sweep that would include individuals “convicted of a drive-by-shooting, carjacking, ar | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2024No. 2023 CA 00058, 2024-Ohio-1094, ¶ 23 (observing the absence of any post-Bruen case law in Ohio on the constitutionality of any of the provisions of Ohio’s weapons under disability statute, R.C. 2923.13, while noting the “overwhelming weight of federal authority” upholding federal laws prohibiting the possession of weapons by felons as constitutional under Bruen). 2024No. 2023 CA 00058, 2024-Ohio-1094, ¶ 23 (observing the absence of any post-Bruen case law in Ohio on the constitutionality of any of the provisions of Ohio’s weapons under disability statute, R.C. 2923.13, while noting the “overwhelming weight of federal authority” upholding federal laws prohibiting the possession of weapons by felons as constitutional under Bruen). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Anthony Gaygreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., United States v. Gay, 98 F.4th 843 (7th Cir. 2024) (upholding application of 922(g)(1) primarily based on Heller dicta, without foreclosing the possibility of as-applied challenges); United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024); Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), vacated, __ U.S. __, 144 S.Ct. 2708 (2024);3 United States v. Canada, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30900 , at *3-4 (4th Cir. Dec. 6, 2024) (holding, without substantive analysis, that 922(g)(1) has a plainly legitimate sweep that would include individuals “convicted of a drive-by-shooting, carjacking, ar 2024See, e.g., United States v. Gay, 98 F.4th 843 (7th Cir. 2024) (upholding application of 922(g)(1) primarily based on Heller dicta, without foreclosing the possibility of as-applied challenges); United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024); Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), vacated, __ U.S. __, 144 S.Ct. 2708 (2024);3 United States v. Canada, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30900 , at *3-4 (4th Cir. Dec. 6, 2024) (holding, without substantive analysis, that 922(g)(1) has a plainly legitimate sweep that would include individuals “convicted of a drive-by-shooting, carjacking, ar | 1 | 1 |
William Drummond v. Robinson Townshipgreen1 sentence2024But Bruen’s test does require courts to straddle a fine line: On the one hand, courts should not “uphold every modern law that remotely resembles a historical analogue,” because doing so “risk[s] endorsing outliers that our ancestors would never have accepted.” 6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Drummond v. Robinson, 9 F.4th 217, 226 (CA3 2021). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Malek al-Malikigreen2 sentences2024Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00058 8 {¶16} Under the plain error standard of review, the Appellant bears the burden of showing but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605 , 2022-Ohio-1556 , 200 N.E.3d 1048 . {¶17} The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summarized the plain error standard of review of a Bruen challenge as follows: But because we review this case for plain error, we must determine only whether the cha 2024Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00058 8 {¶16} Under the plain error standard of review, the Appellant bears the burden of showing but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605 , 2022-Ohio-1556 , 200 N.E.3d 1048 . {¶17} The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summarized the plain error standard of review of a Bruen challenge as follows: But because we review this case for plain error, we must determine only whether the cha | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Daniels
green
2 sentences2024In United States v. Daniels, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the ban on firearm possession unconstitutional in a case where the defendant, who was sober when arrested, admitted to using marijuana multiple times a month. 77 F. 4th 337 (Fifth Cir. 2023). 2024In United States v. Daniels, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the ban on firearm possession unconstitutional in a case where the defendant, who was sober when arrested, admitted to using marijuana multiple times a month. 77 F. 4th 337 (Fifth Cir. 2023). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Troisi
green
1 sentence2026See State v. Thacker, 2024-Ohio-5835, ¶ 7 (1st Dist.); State v. Troisi, 2022-Ohio-3582, ¶ 17 . {¶6} Ngaide’s Bruen argument has already been resolved by this court’s precedents. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Carnes (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2026Further, the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected a pre-Bruen Due Process Clause challenge to R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), concluding that “[a] prior juvenile adjudication may be an element of the weapons-under-disability offense set forth in R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) without violating due process under the Ohio or United States Constitutions.” State v. Carnes, 2018-Ohio-3256, ¶ 21 . 1. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Latham
green
2 sentences2025In State v. Latham, 2025-Ohio-495 (6th Dist.), we noted and applied recent precedent that rejected a presumption that all “felon-in-possession” laws are constitutional in favor of disarming only the individuals that pose a danger. 2025In State v. Latham, 2025-Ohio-495 (6th Dist.), we noted and applied recent precedent that rejected a presumption that all “felon-in-possession” laws are constitutional in favor of disarming only the individuals that pose a danger. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Barber
green
1 sentence2025But as explained in Barber, 2025-Ohio-1193 (1st Dist.), it is not enough under Bruen’s test to show that the manner in which the State has restricted a person’s Second Amendment right is similar to a historical tradition. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Rahimi
green
1 sentence2025In Rahimi, the Court pushed back on what it viewed as some courts’ overly strict application of Bruen and emphasized that the Second Amendment is not a “law trapped in amber.” Id. at 691 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. West
green
2 sentences2024Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00058 8 {¶16} Under the plain error standard of review, the Appellant bears the burden of showing but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605 , 2022-Ohio-1556 , 200 N.E.3d 1048 . {¶17} The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summarized the plain error standard of review of a Bruen challenge as follows: But because we review this case for plain error, we must determine only whether the cha 2024Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00058 8 {¶16} Under the plain error standard of review, the Appellant bears the burden of showing but for a plain or obvious error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been otherwise, and reversal must be necessary to correct a manifest miscarriage of justice.” State v. West, 168 Ohio St.3d 605 , 2022-Ohio-1556 , 200 N.E.3d 1048 . {¶17} The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit summarized the plain error standard of review of a Bruen challenge as follows: But because we review this case for plain error, we must determine only whether the cha | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Rahimi
green
2 sentences2024“To carry its burden, the government must point to ‘historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding [that] evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.’” United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 , 454 (5th Cir.2023), quoting Bruen, 597 U.S. at 27. 2024“To carry its burden, the government must point to ‘historical precedent from before, during, and even after the founding [that] evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.’” United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 , 454 (5th Cir.2023), quoting Bruen, 597 U.S. at 27. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Andre Michael Dubois
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., United States v. Gay, 98 F.4th 843 (7th Cir. 2024) (upholding application of 922(g)(1) primarily based on Heller dicta, without foreclosing the possibility of as-applied challenges); United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024); Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), vacated, __ U.S. __, 144 S.Ct. 2708 (2024);3 United States v. Canada, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30900 , at *3-4 (4th Cir. Dec. 6, 2024) (holding, without substantive analysis, that 922(g)(1) has a plainly legitimate sweep that would include individuals “convicted of a drive-by-shooting, carjacking, ar 2024See, e.g., United States v. Gay, 98 F.4th 843 (7th Cir. 2024) (upholding application of 922(g)(1) primarily based on Heller dicta, without foreclosing the possibility of as-applied challenges); United States v. Dubois, 94 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir. 2024); Vincent v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1197 (10th Cir. 2023), vacated, __ U.S. __, 144 S.Ct. 2708 (2024);3 United States v. Canada, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 30900 , at *3-4 (4th Cir. Dec. 6, 2024) (holding, without substantive analysis, that 922(g)(1) has a plainly legitimate sweep that would include individuals “convicted of a drive-by-shooting, carjacking, ar | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.