By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
Concealed RepublicanConcealed Republican
  • Home
  • Latest News
  • Guns
  • Politics
  • Videos
Reading: Columnist Says Arrests, Not Convictions, Should Lead to Disarmed Defendants
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
Font ResizerAa
Concealed RepublicanConcealed Republican
  • News
  • Guns
  • Politics
  • Videos
  • Home
  • Latest News
  • Guns
  • Politics
  • Videos
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
Concealed Republican > Blog > News > Columnist Says Arrests, Not Convictions, Should Lead to Disarmed Defendants
News

Columnist Says Arrests, Not Convictions, Should Lead to Disarmed Defendants

Jim Taft
Last updated: April 9, 2025 11:35 pm
By Jim Taft 6 Min Read
Share
Columnist Says Arrests, Not Convictions, Should Lead to Disarmed Defendants
SHARE

In our criminal justice system (if not always the court of public opinion) the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Still, even with that ideology at the heart of our legal system, some defendants can be held without bond until trial if a judge believes there’s probable cause to show they’re a threat to the community, and even those who can bond out or are released on their own recognizance before trial often have to abide by conditions imposed on them by the courts. 

That often includes not being able to possess a firearm, and in the state of Ohio there’s no wiggle room or leeway whatsoever for those accused of committing a violent felony. A case winding its way up to the Ohio Supreme Court could upend that statute, however, and Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist Eric Foster is not happy about it.

As Foster explains:

Delvonte Philpotts was accused of committing a violent felony: rape. While still under indictment, he posted photographs of himself with a gun to his social media. He was then charged with another felony — having a weapon under disability (“WUD”) — for violating the Ohio law which prohibited him from possessing a gun while under indictment for a violent felony. (Life lesson: Stop posting everything, young people.) 

The state of Ohio dismissed the rape case, but not the WUD case. Delvonte filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the WUD law violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The trial court denied his motion, after which Delvonte pleaded “no contest.” He appealed his conviction all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court. The high court sent Delvonte Philpotts’ case back to the trial court for reconsideration of his motion to dismiss in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

… 

The trial court did what was ordered. It reconsidered Delvonte Philpotts’ motion in light of Bruen. After doing so, it determined that Delvonte was right. Ohio’s WUD law violated the Second Amendment, as there was no historical tradition of firearm regulation in the same way. Therefore, the law was unconstitutional. Said simply, Ohio’s blanket prohibition of gun possession by those accused of committing violent felonies was itself prohibited by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Last week, the 8th District in Cleveland affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Foster argues that Delvonte’s case should lead “ardent gun enthusiasts to think about just how deep their commitment to the Second Amendment goes.” 

To be clear, I’m not saying that Delvonte is a bad person. Under the law, he is innocent until proven guilty. Moreover, his case was ultimately dismissed. Nonetheless, I would ask those same enthusiasts whether the “good guy with a gun” in their fantasy scenario includes those accused of committing violent felony offenses. Well…does it?

I wouldn’t frame it as a “good guy with a gun”, but whether someone accused of a crime, even a violent felony, should automatically lose their right to possess a firearm. And my answer is “no”. 

As Foster points out, not only was Delvonte’s rape charge ultimately dismissed, he was disarmed before trial by the state’s blanket prohibition on gun possession for anyone charged with committing a violent felony. I personally believe that someone shouldn’t lose their right to keep and bear arms until after a conviction, but the Supreme Court has already made it clear in Rahimi that some individuals presumed to be dangerous by a judge can be barred from possessing a firearm before they’re convicted in court. 

That standard, however, still requires a particularized finding of dangerousness, which is absent in Ohio’s law. The Supreme Court has previously pointed to things like 18th and 19th century surety laws that required individuals believed to pose a particular threat to post a bond before they can carry, but hinted that blanket bans on an entire class of people are unconstitutional. Under the Supreme Court’s precedence, I think a law that allowed some defendants to be disarmed while awaiting trial would probably withstand legal muster, so long as there was a reasonable belief or probable cause to believe that the defendant posed a legitimate threat to the community or other individuals. That’s not what Ohio’s statute says, however, and for that reason, the state Supreme Court should strike down the “weapons under disability” law and require the legislature to use a scalpel and not a sledgehammer when looking at the rights of those accused, but not convicted of, committing violent crimes.  

Read the full article here

You Might Also Like

How Trump dominated Middle East policy in his first five months back in office

Fifth New Orleans jail escapee recaptured, murder suspect Corey Boyd in custody

South Korean liberal Lee Jae-myung wins presidency after political upheaval

Superman's message to MAGA: ‘You’re not American’ if you don’t love immigrants

Nationals’ James Wood gets Barry Bonds treatment

Share This Article
Facebook X Email Print
Previous Article MAGA betrayal? Kash Patel appoints J6 ‘terrorist’ hunter to key position MAGA betrayal? Kash Patel appoints J6 ‘terrorist’ hunter to key position
Next Article Karoline Leavitt Says Americans Would Be ‘Quite Interested’ To Hear Biden’s Hidden Robert Hur Interview Karoline Leavitt Says Americans Would Be ‘Quite Interested’ To Hear Biden’s Hidden Robert Hur Interview
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

- Advertisement -
Ad image

Latest News

Two Young Males Found Dead In Colorado Hunting Expedition Tragedy
Two Young Males Found Dead In Colorado Hunting Expedition Tragedy
Politics
Iran’s People Deserve International Support for Their Resistance and Right to Self-Determination
Iran’s People Deserve International Support for Their Resistance and Right to Self-Determination
Politics
Karoline Leavitt Says Americans Would Be ‘Quite Interested’ To Hear Biden’s Hidden Robert Hur Interview
House Lawmakers Visit China For First Time Since 2019
Politics
Scott Jennings rips into Jasmine Crockett for her ‘malicious smear’ against Charlie Kirk
Scott Jennings rips into Jasmine Crockett for her ‘malicious smear’ against Charlie Kirk
News
Harris breaks silence, calls Biden’s 2024 dropout decision ‘recklessness’
Harris breaks silence, calls Biden’s 2024 dropout decision ‘recklessness’
News
Kash Patel Confirms FBI Probing ‘Signals’ and Online Chats in Charlie Kirk Murder Case [WATCH]
Kash Patel Confirms FBI Probing ‘Signals’ and Online Chats in Charlie Kirk Murder Case [WATCH]
Politics
© 2025 Concealed Republican. All Rights Reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Press Release
  • Advertise
  • Contact
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?