Ohio Supreme Court holds state open carry law preempts local ordinances

[Mike]

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=14596

SNIP

The Ohio Supreme Court made a ruling today upholding Ohio’s preemption law and siding with both the state and the National Rifle Association’s position, as outlined in an amicus brief the organization filed with the Court. The case, The City of Cleveland v. the State of Ohio, stems from the City of Cleveland’s scheme to establish a series of restrictive gun laws despite Ohio law, which clearly prohibits such municipal gun ordinances.

. . .

The City of Cleveland filed suit against the State of Ohio in March of 2007, challenging changes to Ohio state gun laws that effectively preempted all municipal ordinances as to possession and concealed carry of handguns. Cleveland’s city council passed a never-ending stream of useless and burdensome ordinances -- including forced registrations and bans on both open carry and semi-automatic firearms . . .

 

[Grapeshot]

The march to freedom continues.

 

[MetalChris]

Awesome!

 

[detroit_fan]

good news for my neighbors to the south!

 

[paknon2wheels]

Great news! :banana:

 

[IxionDeece]

I think when the weather gets nicer out we have as big of a OC walk in Cleveland as possible....to show them they cannot get away with producing their own laws that infringe upon our rights!!!! Especially since they seem to be an anti-freedom city.

 

[JSlack7851]

I think when the weather gets nicer out we have as big of a OC walk in Cleveland as possible....to show them they cannot get away with producing their own laws that infringe upon our rights!!!! Especially since they seem to be an anti-freedom city.

Its been done. We missed you then.

 

[1MOA]

Its been done. We missed you then.

Lets do it again! Ill be there!

 

[sailorjohn35]

count me in

If there's another march for open carry in ohio I'm sure my wife and I will attend.
Having served my country I feel it's my right to carry and I feel it's every americans right to keep and bear arms.

 

[William Fisher]

I live in Oxford, Ohio. Was talking to a City Park employee and she (she is pro 2nd herself) told me that she has been told that firearms are not permitted in city parks. there is a gun buster sign on the buildings, but none at Park Entrances. Does State trump Local when it comes to City Parks.

Thank You,
William

 

[Grapeshot]

I live in Oxford, Ohio. Was talking to a City Park employee and she (she is pro 2nd herself) told me that she has been told that firearms are not permitted in city parks. there is a gun buster sign on the buildings, but none at Park Entrances. Does State trump Local when it comes to City Parks.

Thank You,
William

Would seem so.
http://volokh.com/2010/12/29/ohio-supreme-court-upholds-state-preemption-of-local-gun-laws/

 

[William Fisher]

Would seem so.
http://volokh.com/2010/12/29/ohio-supreme-court-upholds-state-preemption-of-local-gun-laws/

Thank You Grapeshot.

William

 

[RT48]

Government buildings are still off-limits except for stand-alone rest rooms, shelters and parking garages. Preemption doesn't alter that since it is a state law. Any "No guns" sign covering the open air part of a city park would be null and void.

 

[bhclark]

Can localities still restrict magazine capacity?

I don't typically carry a high capacity mag, but use them at the ranges. However, it is listed as illegal inside the City of Cincinnati to have a mag larger than 10, I believe.

Is there a listing somewhere showing at what county/city/township borders one is required to eliminate high capacity mags from their posession?

 

[Grapeshot]

Can localities still restrict magazine capacity?

I don't typically carry a high capacity mag, but use them at the ranges. However, it is listed as illegal inside the City of Cincinnati to have a mag larger than 10, I believe.

Is there a listing somewhere showing at what county/city/township borders one is required to eliminate high capacity mags from their posession?

State preemption negates Cincinnati's ordinance - thought someone was working to get that removed. I believe Ohio still has a statute limiting magazine capacity to 30 rounds though.

(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.

(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.
(C) As used in this section:
(1) The possession, transporting, or carrying of firearms, their components, or their ammunition include, but are not limited to, the possession, transporting, or carrying, openly or concealed on a person’s person or concealed ready at hand, of firearms, their components, or their ammunition.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68

 

[bhclark]

Thanks!

 

[Grapeshot]

Thanks!

Meant to include this little nugget too:

(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68

All laws should have at least this clause to protect against extra-legal ordinances. A legal, honest citizen should not have to spend hard earned cash for the faults/errors of a municipality.

 

[hotrod]

Meant to include this little nugget too:

(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.68

All laws should have at least this clause to protect against extra-legal ordinances. A legal, honest citizen should not have to spend hard earned cash for the faults/errors of a municipality.

From your mouth to God's ear!!

 

[RT48]

All laws should have at least this clause to protect against extra-legal ordinances. A legal, honest citizen should not have to spend hard earned cash for the faults/errors of a municipality.

Yup. Ohio has a similar provision if police confiscate a firearm and refuse to return it.

(B) If the law enforcement officer does not return the firearm to the person at the termination of the stop or otherwise promptly return the firearm to the person after the seizure of the firearm, if a court finds that a law enforcement officer failed to return the firearm to the person after the person has demanded the return of the firearm from the officer, and if the court orders a law enforcement officer to return the firearm to the person, in addition to any other relief ordered, the court also shall award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to the person who sought the order to return the firearm.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.163

 

[Magickallife]

Baller ohio rox!!