Yes, it does. But what federal law is implicated here?
No, I don’t think it does. The opinion notes that the general rule is one of strict scrutiny; the rule in Ohio is one of reasonableness, and it hopes the Ohio Supreme Court will clarify what its Arnold decision meant. But, they continue, even under the reasonableness standard, the total prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon is unconstitutional.
They may well get overturned for their incorrrect conclusion of law, but they didn’t get hung up by applying “strict scrutiny” here.
Basically, they find that in Ohio, a person carrying a concealed weapon violates R.C. 2923.12. A person openly carrying a firearm is subject to arrest for inducing panic or for disorderly conduct. Taken together, the apellate court found, this operates as a total ban on carrying firearms.
The opinion goes on to dismiss the several affirmative defenses mentioned in the statute as wholly inadequate - first, they say, because even if ultimately not convicted, a citizem exercising his right to carry a weapon is subject to arrest at any time. This makes the right meaningless, according to the judges. Further, they say, the defenses offered are so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot understand them. Citing testimony heard by the trial court, a senior police official apparently testified that he wasn’t sure which defense might apply… “I’d have to call a prosecutor or an attorney,” said the police official, “to see.”
I don’t know much about Ohio law. However, judging merely from the opinion, the decision is correct. It’s perfectly possible to craft a constitutional carry law. The Ohio legislature has not done so. They should either amend their constitution, to remove the right of the people to bear arms for their defense and security, or conform their legislation to the requirements of their constitution.