Thus, R.C. 2923.16 does not unconstitutionally infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. Id.See also State v. Henderson, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2010–P–0046, 2012-Ohio-1268, 2012 WL 1029187, ¶ 55 ; State v. Watson, 157 Ohio App.3d 217, 2004-Ohio-2628, 810 N.E.2d 443, ¶ 20. {¶ 19} We conclude that the constitutional challenges advanced by appellant do not satisfy the plain error standard.
Id. {¶ 26} In State v. Watson, 157 Ohio App.3d 217, 2004-Ohio-2628, 810 N.E.2d 443, ¶ 16 (4th Dist.) the court stated “had [the officer] not searched the vehicle and not found the gun, [the officer] would have had no reason to arrest defendant. Thus, [the officer] would have permitted defendant to leave and, presumably, to reenter his vehicle.
Id. at ¶25. {¶40} Likewise, in State v. Watson, 157 Ohio App.3d 217, 2004-Ohio-2628 (4th Dist.), the defendant argued that R.C. 2923.16(C), the misdemeanor version of the statute, was unconstitutional because it impermissibly restricted his right to bear arms and was vague. The Fourth District overruled both arguments, stating at ¶20: "In Klein, the Supreme Court of Ohio explicitly rejected both of defendant's arguments, holding that '[R.C.] 2923.16(B) and (C) do not unconstitutionally infringe the right to bear arms' and that 'the affirmative defenses of R.C. 2923.16(C) * * * are not vague.'
The resulting protective sweep of the SUV was reasonable under the circumstances. See State v. Watson, 157 Ohio App.3d 217, 2004-Ohio-2628, ¶ 15-16. {¶ 27} Further, assuming arguendo that the search was unreasonable (which it was not), suppression of the evidence should not be a foregone conclusion.