COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Ohio Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Wednesday on a state law that criminalizes carrying a firearm in a bar or other establishment serving liquor when the carrier also consumes alcohol. The oral arguments will take place not in the court's usual Columbus home, but at Defiance High School, as part of the justices’ traveling civic education program.

The case, State of Ohio v. Elijah Striblin, centers on whether the state's prohibition on combining guns and alcohol violates the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The central issue is the legal standard courts must use to judge modern gun regulations, a standard recently established by the U.S. Supreme Court that looks to America’s historical tradition of gun control.

The case stems from an incident in Muskingum County on Aug. 14, 2022. Elijah Striblin and his girlfriend entered the Lazy River Lounge, a business that holds a permit allowing it to sell and serve alcoholic drinks. Striblin was carrying a concealed handgun.

Court documents indicate that surveillance video showed Striblin ordering and drinking at least one alcoholic beverage. He later got into a fist fight with another patron in the men’s restroom. As other people attempted to break up the fight, Striblin pulled out his pistol and shot the other man in the neck. Following the shooting, patrons were evacuated from the bar.

Striblin was ultimately convicted of inducing panic and illegal possession of a firearm in a bar where liquor is served. Ohio law makes it a felony to carry firearms in a liquor establishment under certain conditions, including if the person is consuming alcohol.

The conviction for illegal gun possession was appealed, arguing that the law itself infringes on Striblin’s Second Amendment rights. In June 2024, the Fifth District Court of Appeals agreed with Striblin, issuing a decision that threw out the conviction and declared Ohio’s law unconstitutional on its face. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed with the State of Ohio’s request to take the case. 

The legal conflict centers on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling, which established a new test for evaluating gun regulations: the government must now justify any law by showing it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

This means courts are not supposed to weigh public safety benefits against the burden on gun owners but must instead look to laws passed in the 1700s and 1800s for comparable measures.

The State of Ohio, represented by the Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office, argues that the Appeals Court misinterpreted this new test. The State’s revised brief contends that the Ohio law is constitutional because it aligns with a “deep tradition of regulating the mixing of firearms and alcohol” that has always coexisted with the right to bear arms.

The State contends that the nation’s history is filled with laws banning or regulating the carrying of firearms in certain locations considered "sensitive places," particularly those prone to trouble. They say history justifies the Ohio law, including a New Mexico law from 1852 that prohibited carrying firearms into ballrooms where liquor was sold, and a 1890 Oklahoma Territorial statute banning carrying into places where alcohol was sold.

The State argues that the current law places only a minimal restriction on a citizen’s right to self-defense. In the State’s view, nearly all Ohioans are still permitted to carry a firearm in a bar if they “do not drink any alcohol.” They argue that the focus is on the combination of a firearm and consumption of alcohol, a mixture that has historically been viewed as a danger to public safety.

Elijah Striblin, along with the Office of the Ohio Public Defender, argues that the Fifth District Court of Appeals was correct to strike down the law. Striblin’s position is that the State has failed to demonstrate a sufficient historical equivalent for a blanket ban on carrying a gun in a bar just for consuming any amount of alcohol, regardless of whether the person is legally intoxicated.

For Striblin’s counsel and the Public Defender, the Appeals court’s decision properly applied a test that requires a close match between the modern law and historical regulatory practice. They argue that the historical laws cited by the State often dealt with laws against shooting in crowded areas, or carrying while drunk, not simply carrying and sipping a single drink. They maintain that the law infringes on the constitutional right of self-defense for a person who is otherwise lawfully carrying a firearm.

The State counters that even if the court does not accept the historical examples as perfect matches, the law is still justified because Ohio generally allows citizens to carry firearms for self-defense, even though there is a restriction on carrying while consuming alcohol as an acceptable, narrow regulation.

Briefs have been filed by outside groups that support both sides of the argument. The Cities of Cincinnati and Columbus filed a joint brief in support of the State of Ohio, urging the Supreme Court to uphold the law. These municipalities argue that the ability to regulate weapons in places where alcohol is consumed is a vital component of local public safety.

For cities, the law acts as a necessary preventive measure to reduce the likelihood of armed conflict in locations where emotions and judgment are impaired by alcohol. Local governments depend on their ability to regulate sensitive areas to maintain an orderly society, and a ruling against the state could impair future attempts to control firearm activity in other crowded or volatile locations.

On the other side, the Office of the Ohio Public Defender argues that affirming the Fifth District’s ruling is necessary to protect constitutional rights from undue restriction. They contend that a ruling in the State’s favor would improperly expand the exceptions to the Second Amendment right established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Ohio Supreme Court may take months to issue a decision after the Wednesday oral arguments. If the court affirms the Appeals Court, it will likely render the current law unenforceable, possibly requiring the Ohio General Assembly to craft a new statute. If the court sides with the State, the law will be upheld, solidifying the state’s ability to prohibit gun possession in bars when a person with a gun drinks alcohol.

Oral arguments are set to begin at 9 a.m. Wednesday and will be streamed live online.