[W]e have squarely held that the State may, under Bruen, limit an individual’s ability to carry firearms in the way and for the reason it limited Mr. Ngaide’s.
State v. Ngaide
First District Appellate Court
Hamilton County, Ohio
February 13, 2026
Why is this case important?
State v. Ngaide is important because it reinforces that Ohio’s firearm restrictions remain enforceable against individuals who are not “qualifying adults,” even after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The case confirms that a pending violent misdemeanor charge is enough to disqualify someone from lawful firearm possession in a motor vehicle, and that enforcing O.R.C. §2923.16(B) under those circumstances does not violate the Second Amendment.
Background
When officers pulled defendant-appellant Kalidou Ngaide over, he told them there was a gun on the floor of his car under the driver’s seat. Officers searched and found a loaded gun where Mr. Ngaide had said it would be.
Indicted for Improper Handling of a Firearm
Mr. Ngaide was indicted on one count of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of O.R.C. §2923.12(A)(2) and one count of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle in violation of O.R.C. §2923.16(B). Ohio law exempts most “qualifying adults” from these restrictions on carrying firearms. See State v. Stonewall, 2025- Ohio-4974, ¶ 4 (1st Dist.). But Mr. Ngaide was not a “qualifying adult” at the time of his arrest because, as all parties acknowledge, he had a pending charge for a violent misdemeanor. See O.R.C. §2923.111(A)(1)(c) (providing that a “qualifying adult” must “[S]atisf[y] all of the criteria listed in [O.R.C. §2923.125](D)(1)(a) to (j)”); O.R.C. §2923.125(D)(1)(d) (requiring that applicants not be “under indictment or otherwise charged with . . . a misdemeanor offense of violence”).
Motion to Suppress is Denied
Mr. Ngaide nevertheless moved to dismiss both counts, arguing that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), prohibited criminalizing his possession of a firearm concealed or in a motor vehicle. The trial court denied that motion.
The trial court found Mr. Ngaide guilty of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle and sentenced him to two years of nonreporting community control.
The case proceeded to a bench trial. At the close of the State’s case, Mr. Ngaide moved for a judgment of acquittal on both counts under Crim.R. 29. The trial court granted the motion to acquit Mr. Ngaide of the concealed-carry charge, apparently on statutory grounds. It denied the motion to acquit him of the improper-handling charge, however, as Mr. Ngaide relied on the same constitutional argument he had raised in his failed motion to dismiss. The trial court found Mr. Ngaide guilty of improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle and sentenced him to two years of nonreporting community control.
Established Case Law – Qualified Adult
Mr. Ngaide then took this timely appeal. His sole assignment of error challenges the denial of his Bruen claim at the motion-to-dismiss stage, which we review de novo. See State v. Thacker, 2024-Ohio-5835, ¶ 7 (1st Dist.); State v. Troisi, 2022-Ohio-3582, ¶ 17.
Mr. Ngaide’s Bruen argument has already been resolved by this court’s precedents. We have twice upheld prosecutions under O.R.C. §2923.16(B), the charging provision at issue here, that were brought against defendants who were not “qualifying adults” because they were under 21 years of age. Stonewall, 2025-Ohio-4974, at ¶ 21-25 (1st Dist.); State v. Baxter, 2025-Ohio-5722, ¶ 11-14 (1st Dist.). And we have likewise upheld a concealed-carry prosecution against a defendant who, like Mr. Ngaide, was not a “qualifying adult” because of a pending violent-misdemeanor charge. State v. Hall, 2025-Ohio-1644, ¶ 32-33, 91 (1st Dist.). Taken together, therefore, we have squarely held that the State may, under Bruen, limit an individual’s ability to carry firearms in the way and for the reason it limited Mr. Ngaide’s.
Conclusion and Holding
We therefore hold that, under Hall, Stonewall, and Baxter, the State was permitted to prosecute Mr. Ngaide under O.R.C. §2923.16(B). The trial court therefore did not err in denying his motion to dismiss. We overrule Mr. Ngaide’s sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Ngaide, 2026 – Ohio – 478.
State v. Ngaide, 2026 – Ohio – 478 was issued by the First District Appellate Court on February 13, 2026 and is binding in Hamilton County, Ohio.
Lessons Learned
- Improperly Handling Firearms in a Motor Vehicle O.R.C. §2923.16(B) “No person shall knowingly transport or have a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle in such a manner that the firearm is accessible to the operator or any passenger without leaving the vehicle.”. An exception to this statute is if a person is a qualified adult that means he is a twenty-years old and is not disqualified. From here there is a series of statutes that apply in this case because Mr. Ngaide had a pending misdemeanor offense of violence that had not yet been litigated. The statutes that apply are: See O.R.C. §2923.111(A)(1)(c) (providing that a “qualifying adult” must “[S]atisf[y] all of the criteria listed in [O.R.C. §2923.125](D)(1)(a) to (j)”); O.R.C. §2923.125(D)(1)(d) (requiring that applicants not be “under indictment or otherwise charged with . . . a misdemeanor offense of violence”).
- Improper handling in a Motor Vehicle Remains Enforceable – Even after New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), Ohio courts continue to uphold prosecutions under O.R.C. §2923.16(B) when the person is not a qualifying adult. This is a viable charge—do not assume constitutional challenges will defeat it.
- Other notable disqualifiers:
O.R.C. §2923.125 (D)(1)(d) No pending felony charges, misdemeanor offenses of violence, negligent assault or falsification of Concealed Handgun License charges.
O.R.C. §2923.125 (D)(1)(f) – Convicted of misdemeanor offense of violence.
O.R.C. §2923.125 (D)(1)(j) – Under a protection order in Ohio or another state.
O.R.C. §2923.125 (D)(1)(m) – Concealed handgun license suspension.
O.R.C. §2923.111(A)(2)(b) – Not legally prohibited from possession or receiving a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §922(g) “Who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. §802” [16-Marihuana; 17 – Cocaine; 17 – Opioid]
This is not an all-inclusive list just some of the more common violations.
4. Pre-Sent Arms! The case does not identify the law enforcement agency or officers. However, the officers and the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office should be highly commended for their investigation, arrest, prosecution and successful appeal defense of Mr. Ngaide. Well done!
Does your agency train on CCW and Constitutional Carry?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!