Ohio Pepper Spray and Stun Gun Laws (2026)

Ohio's weapons statutes almost never name pepper spray or a stun gun. Both devices fall, if they fall anywhere, under the state's general "deadly weapon" definition, and that indirect framework leaves open possession clearly unrestricted, while concealed carry is a genuinely untested legal question that the concealed-carry statute itself softens with a defensive-purposes affirmative defense. The same "deadly weapon" definition also governs the most serious exposure either device carries: using it on a person is felonious assault, a second-degree felony, if the device meets that definition. One Ohio statute does name a tear-gas device directly, but for a narrower use, not possession or self-defense.

Jurisdiction scope: This page covers Ohio state law only, principally Ohio Revised Code Sections 2903.11, 2903.13, 2909.07, 2923.11, 2923.12, 2923.13, 2923.122, 2923.123, 2923.24, and 9.68. It does not cover local ordinances that Ohio's preemption statute leaves room for.

Is pepper spray legal to carry in Ohio?

Open possession and purchase, yes, without qualification, and concealed carry has more protection than the bare statutory text suggests. Ohio Rev. Code 2923.11(A) defines "deadly weapon" as "any instrument, device, or thing capable of inflicting death, and designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon, or possessed, carried, or used as a weapon." That two-part test, and the rest of Section 2923.11's definitions, does not use the words "pepper spray," "chemical spray," "tear gas," or "oleoresin capsicum" anywhere. No Ohio statute sets an age floor, a capacity or formula limit, or a dealer-license requirement for buying or openly carrying pepper spray.

The felon and prohibited-persons weapons statute, R.C. 2923.13(A), bars several categories of people from knowingly acquiring, having, carrying, or using "any firearm or dangerous ordnance": a fugitive from justice; a person under indictment for or convicted of a felony offense of violence; a person under indictment for or convicted of a felony offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking of a drug of abuse; a person with a drug dependency, in danger of drug dependence, or with chronic alcoholism; and a person under adjudication of mental incompetence or otherwise subject to a mental-health court order. Violating Section 2923.13 is a felony of the third degree. That "firearm or dangerous ordnance" phrase is narrower than "deadly weapon." R.C. 2923.11(K) defines "dangerous ordnance" as a closed list: automatic and sawed-off firearms, zip-guns, ballistic knives, explosive and incendiary devices, listed high explosives and blasting agents, military ordnance, firearm suppressors, and firearm-conversion parts. Pepper spray does not appear on that list, so Section 2923.13 does not reach pepper-spray possession by a person who is otherwise barred from having a firearm.

Concealed carry is the one genuinely open classification question, but Ohio's concealed-weapons statute pairs that question with a defense written for exactly this situation. R.C. 2923.12(A)(1) makes it a crime to knowingly carry or have, "concealed on the person's person or concealed ready at hand," a "deadly weapon other than a handgun." "Concealed ready at hand" reaches a canister kept in a console, a bag, or a glovebox, not only one carried on the body. Whether an ordinary self-defense pepper spray canister, manufactured and sold as non-lethal, satisfies the "capable of inflicting death" half of the 2923.11(A) definition has not been squarely decided in a published Ohio appellate holding; one 2025 opinion, State v. Jones, 2025-Ohio-3294 (2d Dist.), recites trial testimony, in a case where the defendant had been sprayed by the victim, that pepper spray "is something that can be deployed in a situation where you're worried about your own self-defense," that it "leaves no lasting damage," and that the investigating detective "knew of no situation where someone had died from pepper spray alone." That is testimony recited in an opinion, not a holding that resolves the classification question either way. The closest published appellate language runs the other way: State v. Watson, 2019-Ohio-4385 (4th Dist.), reviewing a felonious-assault sentence for a beating with a broom, bat, or sledgehammer and pepper spray used on the victim's eyes, quoted R.C. 2923.11(A) and concluded that "the use of these objects to inflict harm in the manner in which the crimes were committed satisfy the statutory requirement." The deadly weapon the court enumerated there is the broom, bat, or sledgehammer, so that statement is dictum in a sentencing paragraph and does not decide whether pepper spray alone meets the definition, but it is the kind of application a reader should weigh alongside the Jones testimony rather than instead of it.

Section 2923.12(H) adds a carve-out for "purposes of this section" only, that "'deadly weapon' or 'weapon' does not include any knife, razor, or cutting instrument if the instrument was not used as a weapon." That carve-out is written for knives, razors, and cutting instruments specifically; it does not mention pepper spray, and nothing in Section 2923.12 extends a comparable exemption to it. But the same section supplies something else that does reach a self-defense spray: R.C. 2923.12(D) states that it "is an affirmative defense to a charge under division (A)(1) of this section of carrying or having control of a weapon other than a handgun and other than a dangerous ordnance that the actor was not otherwise prohibited by law from having the weapon and that any of the following applies: (1) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes while the actor was engaged in or was going to or from the actor's lawful business or occupation, which business or occupation was of a character or was necessarily carried on in a manner or at a time or place as to render the actor particularly susceptible to criminal attack, such as would justify a prudent person in going armed. (2) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for defensive purposes while the actor was engaged in a lawful activity and had reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack upon the actor, a member of the actor's family, or the actor's home, such as would justify a prudent person in going armed. (3) The weapon was carried or kept ready at hand by the actor for any lawful purpose and while in the actor's own home." That defense applies only to an (A)(1) charge, meaning only to a non-handgun deadly weapon, exactly the category pepper spray or a stun gun would fall into if the classification question above is resolved against a carrier. Open carry and possession are unaffected either way; the underlying classification question, and the affirmative defense that answers it if raised, concern concealment specifically.

Ohio's criminal-mischief statute reaches one specific use of pepper spray or a similar device, separate from carrying it for self-defense. R.C. 2909.07(A)(2) makes it a crime to, "with purpose to interfere with the use or enjoyment of property of another, employ a tear gas device, stink bomb, smoke generator, or other device releasing a substance that is harmful or offensive to persons exposed or that tends to cause public alarm." A first violation is a misdemeanor of the third degree, rising to a misdemeanor of the first degree if it creates a risk of physical harm to a person. That offense is about using a spray device to interfere with someone else's property, not about carrying one for self-defense.

Using pepper spray against a person, rather than carrying it, runs on the same "deadly weapon" definition the rest of this page is built around. R.C. 2903.11(A) states: "No person shall knowingly do either of the following: (1) Cause serious physical harm to another or to another's unborn; (2) Cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another or to another's unborn by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance." Under R.C. 2903.11(D)(1)(a), a violation is felonious assault, "a felony of the second degree," rising to "a felony of the first degree" if the victim is a peace officer or a Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation investigator. R.C. 2903.11(E)(1) states that "'deadly weapon' and 'dangerous ordnance' have the same meanings as in section 2923.11 of the Revised Code," the identical definition discussed above. So if pepper spray meets that definition, using it to cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another person is felonious assault. R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) separately makes it felonious assault to knowingly cause serious physical harm at all, whatever the means, with no deadly-weapon element; where no deadly weapon is found and no serious physical harm results, R.C. 2903.13, Ohio's assault statute, is the likely charge, a misdemeanor of the first degree under (C)(1), rising to a felony of the fourth degree if the victim is a peace officer, a Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation investigator, a firefighter, or a person performing emergency medical service under (C)(5)(a).

Are stun guns legal to carry in Ohio?

The same framework governs stun guns, and the outcome is the same: open possession, purchase, and carry are unrestricted, with no age minimum, no permit, and no capacity rule, because no Ohio statute names a "stun gun," "taser," or "electronic weapon" anywhere in Chapter 2923's definitions. R.C. 2923.13's felon and prohibited-persons bar does not reach a stun gun either, for the identical reason it does not reach pepper spray: a stun gun is not "dangerous ordnance" under R.C. 2923.11(K)'s closed list, so the statute scoped to "firearm or dangerous ordnance" does not bar a prohibited person from having one. Using a stun gun against a person runs on the same felonious-assault exposure described above for pepper spray: R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) makes causing or attempting to cause physical harm to another "by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance" a felony of the second degree, a felony of the first degree if the victim is a peace officer, and R.C. 2903.11(E)(1) imports the identical R.C. 2923.11(A) "deadly weapon" definition at issue everywhere else on this page.

Concealed carry raises the identical unresolved classification question described above for pepper spray, and the same statutory defense applies to it. R.C. 2923.12(A)(1)'s ban on concealing, "on the person's person or concealed ready at hand," "a deadly weapon other than a handgun" would only reach a stun gun if a stun gun meets the "capable of inflicting death" prong of the 2923.11(A) definition, and that has not been squarely tested in a published Ohio appellate holding. Section 2923.12(H)'s carve-out, like the pepper-spray analysis above, is written for knives, razors, and cutting instruments only, and does not extend to a stun gun. But R.C. 2923.12(D)'s affirmative defense, quoted in full above, applies the same way: a stun gun "carried or kept ready at hand ... for defensive purposes" while the person has reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack, or while going to or from a business that renders the person particularly susceptible to attack, or while at home for any lawful purpose, is a defense to an (A)(1) charge even if a stun gun is found to be a "deadly weapon." A violation of Section 2923.12(A)(1), where it applies and no defense is established, is a misdemeanor of the first degree, rising to a felony of the fourth degree with a prior conviction of this section or an offense of violence, or where the weapon is a loaded firearm or dangerous ordnance. One further enhancement matters for air travel specifically: under R.C. 2923.12(F)(1), if the offense is committed aboard an aircraft, or with purpose to carry a concealed weapon aboard an aircraft, carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Section 2923.12(A) is a felony of the third degree regardless of which weapon is involved.

Where you can't carry either device

Ohio's school-safety-zone statute, R.C. 2923.122, makes it a felony of the fifth degree, a felony of the fourth degree with a prior conviction of the section, to knowingly convey or attempt to convey, or to knowingly possess, "a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance" in a school safety zone, subject to narrow exceptions for law enforcement, school-authorized security personnel, and board-authorized individuals who complete specified training. Section 2923.122(F)(1) adds a mandatory collateral consequence for a young offender: "if the offender has not attained nineteen years of age," the court "shall impose upon the offender a class four suspension" of whatever driver's license, permit, or commercial driver's license the offender holds, and must deny any new license or permit of that type during the suspension, unless the offender shows good cause for the court to substitute community service instead. The courthouse-weapons statute, R.C. 2923.123, uses the identical "deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance" phrase to make it a felony of the fifth degree, a felony of the fourth degree with a prior conviction, to knowingly convey or attempt to convey, or to knowingly possess or control, a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a courthouse or another building or structure containing a courtroom, subject to exceptions for judges, law enforcement, prosecutors, bailiffs, and evidence in a pending case.

Because both sections use the same "deadly weapon" term at issue in the concealed-carry analysis above, whether carrying pepper spray or a stun gun into a school safety zone or a courthouse triggers either felony depends on the same untested classification question: whether the device is "capable of inflicting death" as R.C. 2923.11(A) defines that phrase. Neither section carries a carve-out for pepper spray or a stun gun the way R.C. 2923.12(H) carves out knives, and R.C. 2923.12(D)'s affirmative defense is written into the concealed-weapons statute specifically; nothing in the text of Section 2923.122 or 2923.123 extends that same defense to a school safety zone or a courthouse.

Ohio's possessing-criminal-tools statute, R.C. 2923.24, is a separate catch-all worth knowing about regardless of location: it makes it a crime to "possess or have under the person's control any substance, device, instrument, or article, with purpose to use it criminally," a misdemeanor of the first degree, or a felony of the fifth degree if the circumstances indicate the item was intended for use in a felony. Possession of an item "designed or specially adapted for criminal use," or "commonly used for criminal purposes, under circumstances indicating the item is intended for criminal use," is prima-facie evidence of that criminal purpose. An ordinary self-defense spray or stun gun carried without criminal purpose is not what this section describes, but it is the statute that would reach one carried with unlawful intent.

Ohio's arms-preemption statute, R.C. 9.68(A), is written as a legislative findings clause followed by a separate operative sentence. The findings clause describes "the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, other transfer, manufacture, taxation, keeping, and reporting of loss or theft of firearms, their components, and their ammunition, and knives." The operative sentence then states that, subject to exceptions, a person "may own, possess, purchase, acquire, transport, store, carry, sell, transfer, manufacture, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition, and any knife," without further local license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, and preempts a conflicting local ordinance touching those items. R.C. 9.68(C)(5) defines "arms" for the section as a term that "includes firearms and knives," an inclusive formula rather than a closed one, and (C)(4) defines "knife" as "a cutting instrument" that "includes a sharpened or pointed blade." Neither the findings clause, the operative sentence, nor the definitions name pepper spray or a stun gun, and Section 9.68's operative preemption reaches only firearms and knives by its own terms, so Ohio cities and counties are not state-blocked from adopting their own ordinances regulating pepper spray or stun guns, unlike the firearms and knives R.C. 9.68 expressly preempts.

Federal law: what it does and does not reach

No federal statute regulates a civilian's purchase or possession of pepper spray or a stun gun. Federal law matters in three places.

Federal buildings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present "a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility)" faces a fine, imprisonment of up to 1 year, or both. Subsection (e) sets up to 2 years for a federal court facility, and subsection (b) up to 5 years where the weapon is intended to be used in a crime. Section 930(g)(2) defines the term:

The term "dangerous weapon" means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.

The definition names neither device. Whether a particular spray or stun gun is "readily capable of" causing serious bodily injury is a question of fact the statute does not answer. Subsection (d)(3) exempts "the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes," and subsection (h) requires notice of the ban to be posted at each public entrance. A "Federal facility" is "a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties."

Air travel. The Transportation Security Administration's screening rules, which are agency policy rather than statute, bar both devices from carry-on bags. One 4 fl. oz. (118 ml) container of mace or pepper spray is permitted in checked baggage if it has a safety mechanism to prevent accidental discharge, and sprays containing more than 2 percent by mass of tear gas (CS or CN) are prohibited in checked baggage. Tasers, stun guns and other electro-shock weapons may travel in checked baggage only if transported so the device cannot discharge accidentally. Airlines may set stricter rules.

National parks. National Park Service regulations prohibit possessing, carrying or using a "weapon" in a park area except as the regulations provide (36 CFR 2.4(b)(1)). 36 CFR 1.4 defines "weapon" to include an "irritant gas device" and any "weapon the possession of which is prohibited under the laws of the State in which the park area or portion thereof is located."

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about Ohio's pepper spray and stun gun laws as of September 2026. It is not legal advice. Consult a lawyer licensed in Ohio for advice about a specific situation.

For a state-by-state comparison, see pepper spray and stun gun laws by state. Ohio's self-defense statutes are covered separately on the Ohio self-defense laws page.

Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of 2026-09-18. Last updated: 2026-09-18.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is pepper spray legal to carry openly in Ohio?

Yes, outside a school safety zone or a courthouse. Ohio Rev. Code 2923.11 does not name pepper spray anywhere in its weapons-control definitions, and no other Ohio statute sets an age floor, a capacity limit, or a purchase-channel rule for it. Open carry and possession are otherwise unrestricted, subject to R.C. 2923.122 and 2923.123, which reach a 'deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance' openly or concealed in those two settings.

Is it illegal to carry pepper spray or a stun gun concealed in Ohio?

The classification question is open, but a statutory defense likely covers ordinary self-defense carry either way. R.C. 2923.12(A)(1) bans concealing, or having 'concealed ready at hand,' a 'deadly weapon other than a handgun,' and R.C. 2923.11(A) defines 'deadly weapon' as anything capable of inflicting death and designed, adapted, or used as a weapon. Whether an ordinary self-defense pepper spray canister or stun gun meets that test has not been squarely decided in a published Ohio appellate holding. One 2025 opinion, State v. Jones, recites trial testimony favorable to a spray carrier, while State v. Watson, 2019-Ohio-4385 (4th Dist.), applied R.C. 2923.11(A) to conduct that included pepper spray in a felonious-assault sentencing paragraph, though as dictum alongside other named weapons. But R.C. 2923.12(D) provides an affirmative defense to an (A)(1) charge for a weapon 'carried or kept ready at hand ... for defensive purposes' while the person has reasonable cause to fear a criminal attack, is going to or from a business that renders them particularly susceptible to attack, or is at home for any lawful purpose, so even if a device counts as a 'deadly weapon,' an ordinary self-defense carrier has a defense written for exactly that situation.

Is it a felony to use pepper spray or a stun gun against a person in Ohio?

Potentially yes, if the device qualifies as a 'deadly weapon.' R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), Ohio's felonious-assault statute, makes it a crime to cause or attempt to cause physical harm to another 'by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance,' a felony of the second degree, rising to a felony of the first degree if the victim is a peace officer or a Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation investigator. R.C. 2903.11(E)(1) imports the same R.C. 2923.11(A) 'deadly weapon' definition that governs every other question on this page, so if pepper spray or a stun gun meets that definition, using it against a person carries this felony exposure. Separately, R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) makes it felonious assault to knowingly cause serious physical harm at all, no deadly weapon required; where no deadly weapon is found and no serious physical harm results, R.C. 2903.13, Ohio's assault statute, is the likely charge.

Can a convicted felon possess pepper spray or a stun gun in Ohio?

Ohio's felon-disability statute, R.C. 2923.13, bars specified prohibited persons, including those with a qualifying violent or drug-felony record, from having a 'firearm or dangerous ordnance' only, a felony of the third degree. R.C. 2923.11(K)'s closed list of dangerous ordnance does not include pepper spray or a stun gun, so that statute does not bar a prohibited person from possessing either device.

Can Ohio cities pass their own rules on pepper spray or stun guns?

Yes. Ohio's arms-preemption statute, R.C. 9.68, blocks local regulation of firearms and knives only, in both its operative sentence and its findings clause. Its 'arms' definition 'includes firearms and knives' (an inclusive formula, not a closed one), but pepper spray and stun guns are not named anywhere in the section, and the preemption itself is scoped to firearms and knives, so a city or county is not state-blocked from adopting its own ordinance for either device.

Is it a felony to bring pepper spray or a stun gun into an Ohio courthouse or school?

It depends on the same open classification question as concealed carry, without the benefit of the concealed-carry statute's affirmative defense. R.C. 2923.122 (school safety zones) and R.C. 2923.123 (courthouses) both criminalize conveying or possessing a 'deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance,' and neither section carves out pepper spray or a stun gun the way R.C. 2923.12(H) carves out knives, or supplies a defense the way R.C. 2923.12(D) does. A school-safety-zone offender under 19 also faces a mandatory driver's-license suspension.

Does Ohio have any law that names a chemical spray device directly?

Yes, but for use, not possession. R.C. 2909.07(A)(2), Ohio's criminal-mischief statute, makes it a crime to employ a 'tear gas device, stink bomb, smoke generator, or other device releasing a substance that is harmful or offensive to persons exposed' with the purpose of interfering with another person's use or enjoyment of their property, a misdemeanor of the third degree, or a misdemeanor of the first degree if it creates a risk of physical harm. That is about deploying a spray device against someone else's property, not about carrying one for self-defense.