FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Friday, October 10, 2025
CAPTION: State v. Reed
APPEAL No.: C-240530
TRIAL No.: B-2401359
KEY WORDS: econd Amendment — Carrying Concealed Weapons
SUMMARY: Nineteen-year-old defendant’s conviction for carrying a concealed weapon did not violate Ohio Const., art. I, § 4.
Nineteen-year-old defendant’s conviction for carrying a concealed weapon did not violate the Second Amendment. [See CONCURRENCE: Although defendant’s age alone could not justify restricting defendant’s right to bear arms, our Nation has a history and tradition of restricting all concealed carry, as explained in State v. Hall, 2025-Ohio-1644 (1st Dist.).] [But see DISSENT IN PART: The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss his charge for carrying a concealed weapon where the State failed to carry its burden under the Second Amendment to show that the charge was consistent with our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations, including demonstrating that the State’s reasons for the restriction on defendant’s ability to possess a concealed weapon was for comparable reasons as historical analogues.]
JUDGMENT: affirmed
JUDGES: PER CURIAM; CROUSE, P.J., and MOORE, J., CONCUR; BOCK, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART.
CAPTION: EDELSTEIN v. EDELSTEIN
APPEAL NO.: C-240626
TRIAL NO.: DV-2400381
KEY WORDS: DIVORCE — PROTECTION ORDER — DOMESTIC VIOLENCE —JURISDICTION — SERVICE OF PROCESS — EVIDENCE — EX PARTE — SUBPOENA
SUMMARY: The trial court properly obtained personal jurisdiction over Respondent where Respondent failed to raise the issue of insufficiency of process by motion or in a responsive pleading and where Respondent fully participated in the litigation, effectively waiving the affirmative defense of insufficiency of process.
The trial court’s issuance of a Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where Respondent caused Petitioner to fear for his and the minor child’s safety and the child’s age and previous enmeshment with Respondent justified discounting the child’s testimony.
The trial court did not err in quashing a subpoena for the minor child’s school records where Respondent failed to file the subpoena with the clerk of courts.
The trial court did not err in finding no improper ex parte communications between Petitioner and the court where Respondent failed to substantiate the claim of improper ex parte communication.
The trial court did not err in reviewing exhibits from the ex parte hearing where those exhibits were relevant to the proceedings, and where the issuance of the Domestic Violence Civil Protection Order was based on testimony and exhibits issued at the full evidentiary hearing.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by NESTOR, J.; KINSLEY, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., CONCUR.