Background
On April 10, 2025, Isaac Jovonni, then 18 years old, was indicted for improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle under Ohio Revised Code § 2923.16(B), a felony of the fourth degree. The statute prohibits any person from knowingly transporting or having a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle in a manner that makes it accessible to the operator or any passenger without leaving the vehicle. However, the statute exempts “qualifying adults”—defined as persons 21 years of age or older—from criminal liability.
Jovonni pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that R.C. § 2923.16(B)’s age restriction violated his Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution. He contended that the U.S. Constitution contains no age or maturity restriction on the right to bear arms.
The trial court granted Jovonni’s motion and dismissed the indictment. The court reasoned that the Constitution does not support age or maturity restrictions on firearm possession and found no historical tradition distinguishing firearm rights between 18- and 21-year-olds. The court noted that the Militia Act of 1792 required males at least 18 years old to be enrolled in the militia, suggesting the Framers contemplated firearm possession by 18-year-olds. The State appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the indictment. The appellate court conducted de novo review of the constitutional question and concluded that R.C. § 2923.16(B) is unconstitutional as applied to Jovonni. The court relied on its recent decisions in State v. Matosky (2025-Ohio-5658) and State v. Dorsey (2026-Ohio-581), both of which involved identical constitutional challenges to the same age-based firearm restriction.
The court adopted the trial court’s historical analysis, finding no constitutional or historical basis for distinguishing firearm rights between 18- and 21-year-olds. The court emphasized that the Second Amendment contains no explicit age restriction and that historical evidence—including the Militia Act of 1792—demonstrates the Framers’ intent for 18-year-olds to possess firearms. Because the key fact in Jovonni’s case (his age of 18 at the time of the alleged offense) was identical to that in Matosky, the court applied the same reasoning and overruled the State’s assignment of error.
Key Takeaways
- Ohio’s prohibition on individuals under 21 from transporting loaded firearms in motor vehicles violates the Second Amendment as applied to 18-year-olds, based on historical tradition and constitutional text.
- Courts must conduct de novo review of statutory constitutional challenges without deference to trial court determinations of law.
- Historical evidence, including the Militia Act of 1792, is relevant to Second Amendment analysis under modern constitutional jurisprudence.
- The court’s decision aligns with recent Ohio precedent in Matosky and Dorsey, suggesting a consistent line of appellate authority on this issue.
Why It Matters
This decision signals that Ohio courts are enforcing Second Amendment protections against age-based firearm restrictions, particularly where historical evidence suggests the Framers did not contemplate such restrictions. The affirmance of Matosky‘s reasoning—now applied in Jovonni and Dorsey—creates binding appellate precedent in the Second District that may pressure the Ohio legislature to revise R.C. § 2923.16(B) and related statutes, or face further constitutional challenges. For prosecutors, defense counsel, and firearms rights advocates, this line of cases clarifies that age restrictions on firearm possession face significant Second Amendment obstacles in Ohio’s Second Appellate District.
The reliance on historical tradition and the Framers’ intent reflects broader trends in Second Amendment jurisprudence following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. State legislatures and lower courts nationwide may face similar constitutional challenges to age-based firearm restrictions, making Jovonni instructive beyond Ohio’s borders.