Can Ohio cities pass gun control laws stricter than the state’s? That will be up to courts to decide.
The city of Cincinnati filed a lawsuit against the state of Ohio in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court last week alleging that Ohio’s House Bill 228 violates the so-called “home rule” rights of municipalities.
Those rights, spelled out in the Ohio Constitution, guarantee that towns, cities and other local governments can pass laws as they see fit.
The city’s complaint alleges that HB 228 also violates separation of powers spelled out in the state constitution and that the state “acted unconstitutionally and illegally by enacting a punitive firearms preemption law.”
HB 228, which Ohio Lawmakers passed last December, expressly prohibits cities from passing gun-related regulations.
Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley says that keeps cities from passing meaningful laws that could help reduce gun violence. The city’s legal filing cites last fall’s mass shooting at Fountain Square as an example.
Three people were killed in that attack before police fatally shot the gunman, who carried out the carnage with a legally-obtained 9 mm pistol.
The city has also seen other mass-shootings, including a horrific outbreak of violence at Cameo Nightclub in 2017. That shooting killed two people and injured more than a dozen.
The legal challenge to HB 228 could further be relevant to Cincinnati because city council last May passed a ban on bump stocks, or accessories that can make assault rifles fire at a faster rate. A Franklin County judge ruled last summer that a similar Columbus bump stock ban was unenforceable under Ohio law in place prior to the passage of HB 228.
Other Ohio cities including Columbus have also sued the state over HB 228.
Sign up for Scene’s weekly newsletters to get the latest on Cleveland news, things to do and places to eat delivered right to your inbox.
This article appears in Jun 5-11, 2019.
This article is a perfect example of why we can not have meaningful gun laws and informed conversations about what needs to be done and changed. It just doesn’t describe what HB 288 is accurately, not even close.
This law does not change preemption of local laws. Preemption was done with ORC 9.68 years ago and had already been settled by Ohio’s Supreme court and they were very clear about it. Cleveland fought it twice, the second time they were told if they do it again there will be sanctions. Many cities have pushed this already, it is settled law.
9.68 allows citizens to sue cities that have extra restrictions. It always has, what 288 does is clarify that those cites must pay the citizens attorney fees if the city loses. 9.68 did that years ago,this just clarifies the law.
It changes the requirement to produce a driver’s license and CCW card if asked by the police. Now just the CCW card is enough.
It also shifts the burden of proof in a self defense claim from the defendant to the prosecution. We were the last state in the country to fix that. Think about it, even heavy any gun states like NY and California have already fixed that.
Oh, and what this article failed to mention is that it greatly increases the States ability to prosecute straw man purchases. If you buy a gun for a felon, you are going to have a hammer dropped on you as you should.
Bottom line, the cities know preemption on gun issues is over as it has been for years.But now they are going to have to pay attorney fees when they flaunt that. That is the only reason they are upset.
The reason the State can do this is because the Ohio constitution specifically guarantees gun rights. That makes it a state issue.
So how about it Scene, can we have informed and accurate articles about gun issues so we can work together to fix this mess. Obviously I am a gun owner, but I fully support universal background checks. I support a ton of additional common sense ideas I have seen from liberals that actually have common sense and the facts.