Section 2923.13 of the Ohio revised code says, in part, that “no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance if …The person is under indictment for or has been convicted of any felony offense of violence.”
Prosecutors eventually dropped the rape, kidnapping, and assault charges, but Philpotts received three years of probation after pleading no contest to violating Section 2923.
His lawyer, a public defender, appealed the weapons conviction. He argued that since national precedent bans convicted felons from possessing firearms, criminalizing possession for those under indictment violates the Second Amendment. The filing also claimed Philpotts lived in a dangerous neighborhood and needed a firearm for protection.
This gun case should trouble us all because of the implications. If the court rules for Philpotts, I guess that means people under indictment for felony domestic violence can keep and carry their firearms.
That worried Jane Keiffer, the executive director of the Artemis Center, which helps survivors of domestic violence. The center received nearly 6,700 domestic violence calls and provided services to 4,127 domestic violence survivors in 2021, the last year statistics were available.
“We know that when abusers have weapons, their victims are five times more likely to be murdered,” Keiffer said. For someone indicted on felony domestic violence, “We would not want that person to have access to a weapon, because the likelihood of homicide increases dramatically.”
A suspect doesn’t have to fire a weapon for it to send a message. The presence of a weapon sparks fear and places the suspect in a position of power and control. “They don’t have to pull the trigger. They just have to put the gun out,” Keiffer said.
People generally boil down the most complex debates into simplistic terms and solutions that fail to account for the damage decisions can cause. Talk about guns, and advocates scream Second Amendment without considering the consequences of abandoning reasonable restrictions.
We already know that most Americans from both parties want common sense gun reform but keep getting thwarted by lawmakers who bow to a powerful gun lobby that only cares about its absolutist stance.
Ohio’s well-thought-out law protects society. For those who wonder why a suspect who’s been indicted but not convicted of a violent felony should lose a right to bear arms, that’s a simple one. Those under indictment lose a lot of rights, including the right to their freedom, whether they’re held without bail pending a trial or have to stay at home with an ankle monitor.
You’re telling me we can restrict a person’s freedom when under indictment, but we can’t restrict, even temporarily, a killing machine?
That makes no sense.
Hopefully, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is hearing the case will uphold Ohio law because it’s in the best interest of its citizens.
By the way: In 2018, Philpotts shot and killed Martez Thomas, 23, in a robbery over a refurbished cellphone. A judge sentenced Philpotts to life in prison last June.
SOMETHING NEW: So many of you take the time to email me and discuss topics you find important that you’ve given me an idea. From time to time, I’ll ask some of you to participate in a “reader conversation” on a topic you choose. The first one, about personal responsibility, will appear soon.
Ray Marcano’s column appears on these pages each Sunday. He can be reached at raymarcanoddn@gmail.com.
About the Author