Ohio Court of Appeals: No Ban on Second Amendment Rights upon Indictment

AmmoLand ^ | January 9, 2025 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In 2023, a prosecutor, using a grand jury, brought an indictment against Kendall Brown for robbery. The robbery indictment led to a charge of possessing a firearm while under indictment. The robbery indictment was dismissed, but the charge of possession of a firearm while under indictment persisted. Brown moved to dismiss the charge of firearms possession while under indictment. The trial court agreed and dismissed the firearms possession charge. The state of Ohio appealed. On January 3, 2025, the State appeals court agreed with the trial court in a split decision, 2-1. The Court found the statutory ban on possession of a firearm while under indictment was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. From the decision, Ohio v Kendall Brown:

BERGERON, Judge.

{¶1} This case concerns the State’s power to disarm one of its citizens based solely on the fact that he is under indictment. After defendant-appellee Kendall Brown was indicted for a robbery but released on bail, officers discovered a gun in his home. The State then charged Mr. Brown anew, this time with possessing a firearm while under a disability—specifically, possessing a weapon while under indictment for a felony offense of violence. Mr. Brown moved to dismiss the new indictment, and shortly thereafter, the court dismissed his robbery indictment. He thus maintained, and the trial court agreed, that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution bars a prosecution like his. The State now appeals, asking us to resolve whether the Constitution prohibits Ohio from disarming an individual based solely on his indictment for a felony offense like robbery. On the facts and history presented in this case, we hold it does. We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment dismissing Mr. Brown’s indictment.

Kendall Brown had never been convicted of a felony. He had never undergone a trial.

[marktwain]

An indictment is not sufficient cause for a blanket ban on the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

[ComputerGuy]

A good decision, imo. Grand jury indictments are ridiculously easy to obtain.

[jurroppi1]

Grand jury indictments are ridiculously easy to obtain.

Well, there's not only that, but the fact that it isn't a conviction. I don't understand why the people aren't seeing the massive amount of lawfare being used against them in furtherance of the deep state and are simply taking it - with pleasure. I get where the lawfare comes from and why, just not why we have not risen up en masse (other than that we still haven't seen enough pain). I agree with many on this forum that state; this is our last chance before we get full on totalitarian government or worse.

[Ex-Con777]

One would think this should also apply to First Amendment rights. But, no. Judge Merchan sees things differently.

EC