Lets look at United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, 553 - Supreme Court 1876
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
Now read Heller. Heller affirms Cruikshank by stating:
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment . . . means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.” 92 U. S., at 553.
Heller in its Syllabus also said:
The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
With all this said by Heller, it only affirms that 18 USC 922(q) school gun free zone is unconstitutional. And no, the commerce clause can't be used as the backdoor.
The federal appeal courts intentionally overlook that very principle. But yet, what attorney has ever pointed that out.
And as Liberty pointed out: “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). And the Second Amendment says arms, not meaning just guns. A baton is an arm. The USSC has made clear that states may only expand your rights, they cannot limit those rights already recognized by the federal constitution.
But, the truth is that Ohio courts will never recognize your rights.