Tweet
This has nothing to do with California, but it is interesting from a gun-control vs. freedom perspective.
Apparently a legal battle is being fought in Ohio, where Cleveland enacted stricter gun control laws than the state and the city is fighting to preserve them. I seriously doubt the city will win.
The case is City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, Case no. 2009-2280
8th District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County)
Apparently a legal battle is being fought in Ohio, where Cleveland enacted stricter gun control laws than the state and the city is fighting to preserve them. I seriously doubt the city will win.
The case is City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, Case no. 2009-2280
8th District Court of Appeals (Cuyahoga County)
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Cleveland's ongoing quest to enforce tougher gun control rules than state law requires reached Ohio's top courton Tuesday.
The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments in a case pitting the city against the state. The city is fighting to govern its residents with its own set of rules rather than those imposed by an Ohio statute.
Ohio's constitution allows cities to exercise "home rule" to enforce policing ordinances as long as those local rules do not infringe on state "general" laws, which are considered the unquestioned rule of the land.
"One thing the state fails to recognize is that one size does not fit all," Cleveland assistant law director Gary Singletary told the justices. "The city is trying to protect its citizens through reasonable regulation."
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court has already sided with the state, saying the Supreme Court has already established a precedent in a 2008 ruling blocking the city of Clyde from prohibiting concealed carrying of firearms in its city parks because it violated the state's general law.
The Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals overturned the lower court, saying the state gun law was not a general law, according to a four-pronged test the Supreme Court established in a 2002 Canton case.
The state appealed to the Supreme Court. During Tuesday's arguments, justices challenged and quizzed attorneys for both the city and state.
Singletary argued that the statewide gun law should not be considered a general law because it does not adequately allow the city to police its residents on the issue of gun control.
Cleveland has argued that its crime troubles are more severe than in other parts of the state, so gun control rules that apply in rural areas, for example, where crime isn't as much of a worry, should not equally apply in a big city.
"Really, what this law is attempting to do is take away the city's rights to regulate the safety of its residents," Singletary said.
But Solicitor General Benjamin Mizer, arguing for the state, said that before the statewide gun control rules took effect in December 2006, gun owners faced a patchwork of local gun rules from county to county, city to city, town to town.
It meant that a person legally toting a firearm in one place might drive a few miles to a different jurisdiction and unknowingly be in violation of gun rules. For that reason, the General Assembly established the uniform state law, thereby making it a general law.
"They have drawn a line on a ceiling of gun regulations," Mizer said. "Localities cannot raise the ceiling on those gun provisions," Mizer said.
Cleveland has about a half dozen firearm provisions that are stricter than the state law. For example, every firearm in the city must be registered, no one can openly carry a gun and assault rifles and shotguns are banned -- all of which run contrary to Ohio's uniform gun law.
The ordinances are not being enforced by police while the court cases are pending.
Singletary said the state law pre-empts the city's local control, which is not allowed by Ohio's constitution.
Justice Paul Pfeifer asked Singletary if the court lifted "blanket" pre-emptions like the state's gun law whether Cleveland would be back in court challenging other state laws. Singletary agreed that could be the net effect.
The attorneys and justices focused many of their comments on the Canton four-pronged test, which says the gun statute is a general law if it is part of an overall legislative effort to regulate firearms and is applied evenly statewide.
Cleveland argues the state's gun law fails that test because it does not cover specific firearms restrictions covered by its local ordinances.
Mizer said the state disagrees with Cleveland's position that"gun rights are regulatable as long as there is not a specific exemption in state law."
The justices will have the final word. An opinion is expected in the next few months.
SOURCE
The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments in a case pitting the city against the state. The city is fighting to govern its residents with its own set of rules rather than those imposed by an Ohio statute.
Ohio's constitution allows cities to exercise "home rule" to enforce policing ordinances as long as those local rules do not infringe on state "general" laws, which are considered the unquestioned rule of the land.
"One thing the state fails to recognize is that one size does not fit all," Cleveland assistant law director Gary Singletary told the justices. "The city is trying to protect its citizens through reasonable regulation."
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court has already sided with the state, saying the Supreme Court has already established a precedent in a 2008 ruling blocking the city of Clyde from prohibiting concealed carrying of firearms in its city parks because it violated the state's general law.
The Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals overturned the lower court, saying the state gun law was not a general law, according to a four-pronged test the Supreme Court established in a 2002 Canton case.
The state appealed to the Supreme Court. During Tuesday's arguments, justices challenged and quizzed attorneys for both the city and state.
Singletary argued that the statewide gun law should not be considered a general law because it does not adequately allow the city to police its residents on the issue of gun control.
Cleveland has argued that its crime troubles are more severe than in other parts of the state, so gun control rules that apply in rural areas, for example, where crime isn't as much of a worry, should not equally apply in a big city.
"Really, what this law is attempting to do is take away the city's rights to regulate the safety of its residents," Singletary said.
But Solicitor General Benjamin Mizer, arguing for the state, said that before the statewide gun control rules took effect in December 2006, gun owners faced a patchwork of local gun rules from county to county, city to city, town to town.
It meant that a person legally toting a firearm in one place might drive a few miles to a different jurisdiction and unknowingly be in violation of gun rules. For that reason, the General Assembly established the uniform state law, thereby making it a general law.
"They have drawn a line on a ceiling of gun regulations," Mizer said. "Localities cannot raise the ceiling on those gun provisions," Mizer said.
Cleveland has about a half dozen firearm provisions that are stricter than the state law. For example, every firearm in the city must be registered, no one can openly carry a gun and assault rifles and shotguns are banned -- all of which run contrary to Ohio's uniform gun law.
The ordinances are not being enforced by police while the court cases are pending.
Singletary said the state law pre-empts the city's local control, which is not allowed by Ohio's constitution.
Justice Paul Pfeifer asked Singletary if the court lifted "blanket" pre-emptions like the state's gun law whether Cleveland would be back in court challenging other state laws. Singletary agreed that could be the net effect.
The attorneys and justices focused many of their comments on the Canton four-pronged test, which says the gun statute is a general law if it is part of an overall legislative effort to regulate firearms and is applied evenly statewide.
Cleveland argues the state's gun law fails that test because it does not cover specific firearms restrictions covered by its local ordinances.
Mizer said the state disagrees with Cleveland's position that"gun rights are regulatable as long as there is not a specific exemption in state law."
The justices will have the final word. An opinion is expected in the next few months.
SOURCE
Otherwise it'd be really nice to have another useful tool to attack NYC's laws which exclude gun owners and their carry rights from all other parts of the state.
Comment