The Akron Legal News

Justices pass on Second Amendment challenge in gun collection dispute

KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: April 25, 2019

The state's high court turned down a Solon man's challenge to confiscation of his firearms as a term of his probation after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct.

A 5-2 majority of the Supreme Court of Ohio found no merit in John Broderick's assertion that the city significantly curtailed his Second Amendment right to bear arms by confiscating his collection of 15 firearms for an offense that did not involve a gun.

Mayfield Heights attorney Bryan Carr wrote in Broderick's memorandum in support of jurisdiction that, given the 8th District Court of Appeals' precedent, any individual in Ohio convicted of any crime is now subject to having his lawfully owned firearms taken from him for any period of time a trial court believes reasonable.

"Under the 8th District's precedent, this may be the case even if the crime at issue has absolutely nothing to do with firearms, did not involve firearms and even if the firearms were locked in a safe in the basement" - as was the case with Broderick, Carr wrote. "This precedent simply goes too far and unlawfully impinges upon individuals' rights under the 2nd Amendment."

Case summary provided that Solon police officers responded to a domestic situation at Broderick's home Dec. 22, 2017.

They encountered a drunk Broderick, who reportedly had been arguing with his wife before striking her in the face twice and jumping on top of her.

Officers arrested Broderick, who was charged with a single count of domestic violence.

At that time, officers removed the man's collection of firearms, summary continued.

Bedford Municipal Court issued an order barring Broderick from his home Dec. 27, and the next day, Broderick pleaded not guilty to the charge.

A plea agreement reduced the original charge to disorderly conduct, despite a Solon ordinance forbidding such a practice.

Broderick pleaded guilty to the lesser charge and was sentenced to a suspended jail term of 30 days and a year's probation.

One of the terms of his probation was to have no weapons in the marital residence during the probationary period, summary continued.

Broderick's counsel objected to the provision at the time and it became one of the man's arguments on appeal of the trial court holding.

Eighth District Judge Tim McCormack addressed Broderick's assertion that his disorderly conviction did not involve use of a firearm.

Citing State v. Holloway, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97906, 2012-Ohio-4936, McCormack wrote that the mere fact that a defendant reaches a plea agreement for a lesser offense does not mean that a trial court should disregard the underlying facts giving rise to the indictment and conviction.

"Trial courts have the discretion to consider facts and circumstances leading to a conviction," McCormack wrote. "Here, that includes the fact Broderick violently attacked his wife by striking her in the their home, and he did so with 15 deadly weapons at his disposal."

Carr believed his client was caught in a "perfect storm" created by the fear of gun violence.

"The probation condition mandated by the trial court blatantly violates (Broderick's) rights under the 2nd Amendment and fails the State v. Jones test," which guides a trial court's imposition of probation conditions, Carr continued.

He outlined three reasons why the lower court failed to reach a reasonable conclusion.

First, Broderick was a first time offender and required no rehabilitation, Carr argued. Second, firearms had nothing to do with the crime for which Broderick was charged or convicted.

"Third, the condition of probation does not have a relationship to criminal conduct nor is it reasonably related to future criminality," Carr continued. "There was no argument or allegation that appellant's firearms were no lawfully owned and possessed.

"In fact, the appellant received correspondence from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he was precluded from purchasing a firearm due to the trial court's order."

Carr criticized the prosecutor and the appellate court for their use of loaded language to further stoke irrational fear of which he mentioned in the filing.

"This hyperbole does not justify a violation of the 2nd Amendment," he concluded.

The case is cited as Solon v. Broderick, Cuyahoga App. No. 107043, 2018-Ohio-4900.

[Back]