State v. Temple — Affirmed dismissal of a concealed-weapon indictment against a 19-year-old

Background

A Montgomery County grand jury indicted Jeremy Temple Jr. on one count of carrying a concealed weapon under Ohio Revised Code § 2923.12(A)(2), a fourth-degree felony. Temple was 19 years old at the time of the alleged offense.

Temple moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that it violated his right to bear arms under the Second Amendment and the Ohio Constitution. The trial court granted the motion based on the Second District’s decision in State v. Matosky, 2025-Ohio-5658, which held that restricting concealed firearm possession solely because a person is between 18 and 20 years old was unconstitutional as applied to that age group. The State appealed under Ohio Revised Code § 2945.67(A).

The Court’s Holding

The Second District held that Ohio’s concealed-carry statute, § 2923.12(A)(2), was unconstitutional as applied to Temple. It explained that the State’s arguments mirrored those it had raised in Matosky and that the controlling fact was also the same: Temple had not reached age 21 when the alleged offense occurred.

Applying Matosky’s reasoning, the court rejected the State’s contention that the age restriction was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and fell outside the Second Amendment’s protection. It overruled the State’s sole assignment of error and affirmed the dismissal of the indictment.

Key Takeaways

• Under binding Second District precedent, Ohio Revised Code § 2923.12(A)(2) is unconstitutional as applied when concealed-carry liability rests solely on the defendant being 18 to 20 years old.
• The court treated State v. Matosky as controlling because the State presented materially identical arguments and Temple, like the defendant there, was under 21 at the time of the alleged offense.
• The ruling affirmed dismissal of Temple’s single-count indictment; it did not declare the concealed-carry statute unconstitutional in every application.

Why It Matters

The decision confirms that Matosky governs prosecutions within Ohio’s Second Appellate District when an adult defendant’s alleged concealed-carry offense depends solely on being younger than 21. Prosecutors and defense counsel handling similar cases must account for that precedent.

The opinion is narrow and fact-specific. Its holding concerns the statute as applied to Temple, a 19-year-old, rather than the validity of Ohio’s concealed-carry law across all defendants and circumstances.