Justice Pfeifer on Gun Rights
From Judgepedia
Justice O'Connor concurred in the majority opinion, authored by Justice Moyer, which held, over the divergent concurrences of Justices Lundberg Stratton, Pfeifer, and O'Donnell, upheld the conviction of an Ohio man charged with carrying a concealed handgun, where the man had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, immediately advised the officer who initiated the traffic stop that he had an unloaded handgun and a loaded magazine together in a closed case. The majority specifically upheld the conviction because "the ammunition must be located in such a place that it cannot be readily loaded into the firearm." The court reasoned as follows:
- "There are three other means by which Davis could have transported the handgun without violating the statute. The unloaded gun could have been in plain sight on a gun rack; outside the passenger compartment of his vehicle; or in plain sight, stripped or with the action open. Davis chose to have the unloaded weapon in a closed box at his feet. That action alone complied [would not be a crime] unless the weapon was “ready at hand.” It was Davis's decision to include a loaded magazine in the closed box, in close proximity to the handgun and himself, that caused Davis to be in violation of [the applicable statute]."
- [The defendant's] conviction * * * turns * * * on whether his unloaded firearm and ammunition were in such proximity as to make the weapon “ready at hand.”
- Defining “ready at hand” requires more than a simple distance formulation; e.g., that two feet from the firearm is ready at hand while three feet from it is not. Rather, it is a factual determination based upon the location of the weapon, the type of weapon, and the location and configuration of the ammunition. “ ‘Ready at hand’ means so near as to be conveniently accessible and within immediate physical reach.”
- Here, the trial court determined that a loaded magazine, in the same unlocked box as a semiautomatic handgun, located at the defendant's feet was conveniently accessible and within immediate physical reach as to support a finding that the handgun was ready at hand. * * * [W]e will not upset that finding.
In their concurring opinion, authored by Justice O'Donnell, Justices Pfeifer, and Lundberg Stratton, emphasized their reluctance to uphold the conviction. The concurring justices observed that "Notably, the statute fails to indicate where a person may transport the ammunition for the handgun he or she seeks to lawfully transport." The three justices also made the following observations:
- "In an effort to be a law-abiding citizen, [the defendant] complied with [the statute] by unloading his handgun and placing it in a closed case manufactured for the purpose of storing and transporting this weapon, along with the loaded magazine. Upon questioning by the arresting officer, [he] truthfully advised the officer that the case contained a handgun and a loaded magazine. Yet, because the handgun was concealed in the closed case, and because the trial court made an unchallenged factual finding that it was 'ready at hand' because [the defendant] had placed both the handgun and the loaded magazine in the same case, conveniently accessible and within his immediate physical reach, [the defendant] found himself unwittingly in violation of R.C. 2923.12(A)(2)."
- "A predictable, and, in my view, much less desirable, result of today's outcome will be that persons seeking to avoid a violation of either R.C. 2923.12(A) or 2923.16(C) will simply place their unloaded handguns in plain sight on the passenger seat next to them, stripped or with the action open, and place the ammunition in a readily accessible pocket or purse. While these acts would arguably make a weapon more “ready at hand,” such a determination would be meaningless because the weapon would no longer be concealed."
- "In short, I believe that an unloaded handgun transported in a closed gun case with its ammunition presents far less danger to law enforcement officers and the public at large than an unloaded handgun in plain sight with both the ammunition and the handgun readily accessible to the motorist. Accordingly, I reluctantly concur with the majority opinion and urge the General Assembly to further consider the troublesome interplay between these statutes."
