Imagine a world where every town had completely different traffic laws. Drive into Parma and suddenly you're required to drive on the left side of the road. Enter Lakewood, and a red light means to go and a green light means stop. Head into Westlake and get arrested because white cars are illegal. That is the scenario facing gun owners if Cleveland wins its bid to overturn statewide preemption in Ohio.
When concealed carry first passed in Ohio back in 2004, there was a provision in the bill numbered "Section 9" that stated the intent of the legislature was for the gun laws enacted to be uniform throughout the state. This was to prevent a patchwork quilt of local gun laws where a constitutionally protected right, enumerated in both the U.S. and Ohio constitutions, was at the mercy the local politicians. With the stroke of a pen your gun rights could be invalidated.
Several Ohio cities, including the City Cleveland, flaunted that attempt so House Bill 347 was passed which enacted Ohio Revised Code 9.68, which reads...
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.
Cleveland sued the State of Ohio in March of 2007 on the grounds that the new law violates the concept of Home Rule. Their thoughts on the matter were summed up by a City official in the wake of Ohioans For Concealed Carry's win in the OFCC v. City of Clyde case who said, "we know what we need to do to keep people safe in Cleveland. As a local municipality, we should be able to say where you can't carry guns." In the Clyde case, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the City of Clyde's ban on guns in its parks was contrary to state law and was overturned. In the ruling, the Court found that 9,68 was a "general law that is part of a comprehensive statewide legislative enactment." Cleveland is arguing that the ruling in the Clyde case only applies to concealed carry laws and that preemption is unconstitutional anyway.
Cleveland lost in the trial court, but appealed and won in the 8th District Court of Appeals. The State of Ohio appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court and that case is pending. The Ohio Supreme Court has issued a stay preventing local gun laws from being enforced while the case is considered. The National Rifle Association, in conjunction with Ohioans For Concealed Carry, has attempted to intervene numerous times but has been denied the opportunity to argue in defense of the law on the grounds that we have no standing.
The problem with the City's argument is that "home rule" was never intended to allow cities to do whatever they want, deny whatever rights they want, and thumb their noses at the rest of the state. Home Rule was intended to allow cities to decide whether skateboarding on the sidewalk is a nuisance or how much to pay their fire chief.
Related to all of this is the McDonald v. Chicago case currently being heard in the Supreme Court of the United States. This case came about as a result of Chicago's gun ban and could determine whether or not State and local governments are bound by the Second Amendment. If that case is decided prior to the Cleveland case, the precedent set will likely be used by the Ohio Supreme Court in their decision.
Anticipating that importance, both the City of Cleveland and Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray have become involved in the McDonald case, again on opposite sides of the issue. Cordray argues the case is about "how gun rights are applied, and about assuring their even application throughout the nation" while the City counters that it would "handcuff the ability of Cleveland, Columbus and cities nationwide to respond to gun-related violence."
The McDonald case, like the Heller case before it, promises to have far reaching consequences and the rights of gun owners do indeed hang in the balance.
Comments
I'm always amazed that some people believe that the thugs will respect a new gun restriction and that will solve our violence problems. Get real! We are in a war that is growing every day. At least let law abiding citizens degfent themselves against the thugs.
"we know what we need to do to keep people safe in Cleveland. As a local municipality, we should be able to say where you can't carry guns." Is this guy serious? How many deaths and home invasions have there been in Cleveland. I stay out of that city at all costs. Yes, Cleveland, a great place to mugged, car jacked, robbed, raped, assaulted, or killed. Uniform laws are a must for ALL States. These laws must be kept at the State level.
Go to the projects on Cleveland's east-side and see what a liberal utopia looks like.
Cleveland has a gang problem not a gun problem. They also have a revolving door justice system that eats up about half the county budget. If they are so concerned about the residents safety, they need to get rid of the bad apples instead of trying restrict the rights of the people who live there.
Cleveland is falling apart! Bridges, streets, sewers, water lines, electrical grid, buildings and neighborhoods and they are wasting tax dollars on defending an unconstitutional law that does not address the real issues of drugs and gangs. Way to go Cleveland!!!
Glad I move to Geauga county where I no longer fund this crap.
For the life of me I can't understand how Cleveland thinks gun registration will impact crime or violence. Residents who keep firearms for home defense are not involved in the city's crime problems. The laws regulating guns on the street are adequate to punish violent criminals. So why dig in their heels for nothing more than bureaucratic red tape that serves no real purpose? It's sad for me to watch what is happening to our once great city. I want to blame the politicians, but the people elect them. I fear it may soon be too late to turn things around there. All of NE Ohio will suffer the consequences.
It's a pity. Cleveland has arguably the world's best orchestra, one of a handful of "big-time" art museums featuring free admission to the permanent collection, a good library system, and some other attractive features...
...and the most mendacious, incompetent, imbecile, petty-evil political classes in the history of all mendacious, incompetent, imbecile, petty-evil political classes. They're going to kill a city that offers 85% of New York for 50% of the cost of living, and it's a shame. A crime, a sin, and a shame.
But the looters and moochers who keep electing them sort of deserve it.
Gun laws that do not infringe upon the fundamental, preexisting right to bear arms for self-defense anywhere should be uniform from sea to shining sea. Citizens shouldn't have to worry about innocently acquiring a felony conviction just because they travel from one state to another or city/town to city/town within a state. An example of a "sensitive area" for infringement upon the right would be a Court House where everyone is scanned coming in, an abundance of armed guards are present charged with protecting the building's occupants with deadly force. Every other place, including private property, should have to meet the same criteria in order to infringe upon a citizen's right to defend their life (to which they have an unalienable right). jmho
Thought I should clarify the "private property" part of my earlier post before I'm flamed. What I meant to say was, public, commercial type private property, e.g. malls, restaurants, retail. Places designed for the public to visit, congregate etc. If someone does not want a firearm in their home, I think they should have that privilege. Also, in any situation whereby firearms are disallowed, the citizen should always have the right to lock their weapons in their privately owned vehicles so they're not denied their right to bear arms for self defense everywhere while traveling from or to employment etc. Again, jmho.
Sorry Muxtech, "great city"??? You mean the mistake by the lake?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!