The Ohio Court of Appeals recently upheld the conviction of Keith W. McKenzie, who was found guilty of possessing firearms while under a disability. This ruling, issued on July 27, 2026, affects McKenzie, who faces a 24-month prison sentence, and sets a precedent regarding the interpretation of firearms laws in Ohio.
McKenzie was arrested during a traffic stop on February 22, 2025, when police discovered a firearm in the vehicle he was traveling in. The case began when law enforcement stopped a car driven by Timothy Looper due to an illegally tinted license plate. During the stop, officers learned that McKenzie had outstanding warrants. Upon his arrest, officers found a .22-caliber Marlin rifle under the passenger seat where McKenzie had been sitting.
On May 15, 2025, McKenzie was indicted on two counts of having weapons while under disability, both classified as third-degree felonies. These charges were based on McKenzie’s prior felony convictions: one for burglary and the other for aggravated possession of drugs. He pleaded not guilty, and the case went to trial in October 2025, where the jury ultimately convicted him on both counts.
After the conviction, McKenzie appealed the decision, raising several arguments regarding the constitutionality of the weapons under disability statute, R.C. 2923.13(A). He claimed that the statute was unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments because it disarms individuals without a specific judicial finding of danger. McKenzie also argued that his prior convictions did not meet the threshold for such disarmament.
The court, led by Judge Zimmerman, ruled that McKenzie’s challenges were without merit. The court stated, "R.C. 2923.13(A) aligns with the historical tradition of disarming individuals deemed dangerous." The court emphasized that the statute is presumed constitutional unless proven otherwise and that McKenzie failed to demonstrate that the statute was unconstitutional in any of its applications.
Furthermore, the court noted that McKenzie’s prior convictions for burglary and drug possession were sufficient to classify him as a person who poses a risk to public safety. The court concluded that disarming individuals with such convictions is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Additionally, the court addressed McKenzie’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence for his conviction. McKenzie claimed that there was no proof he knew the firearm was a deadly weapon. However, the court found that the evidence presented at trial, including testimony from Looper and police officers, supported the conclusion that McKenzie knowingly possessed the firearm.
The court also ruled against McKenzie’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, stating that his trial attorney's actions did not undermine the outcome of the trial. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, emphasizing that McKenzie’s conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and did not violate his constitutional rights.
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the legal framework surrounding firearm possession for individuals with prior felony convictions in Ohio. It clarifies the application of the Second Amendment in cases involving individuals deemed dangerous due to past criminal behavior.
Looking ahead, McKenzie may seek further appeal options, but the court's ruling sets a strong precedent for similar cases in the future. The outcome of this case will likely influence how courts interpret the intersection of firearm laws and constitutional rights in Ohio.