In a significant decision, Ohio’s Tenth District Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the state’s firearm preemption law, reversing a preliminary injunction earlier granted to the city of Columbus. This has reignited the debate over local vs. state control of gun regulations, raising questions over constitutional rights and public safety.
The court’s decision ensures that Ohioans must adhere to the state law regarding firearms. According to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, “The court’s ruling assures that all Ohioans must abide by the same law, state law when it comes to firearms.”
He emphasized that firearm owners across Ohio should follow a unified set of rules, praising the decision as a win for the state.
However, the situation has complex origins. In 2019, Columbus officials initiated a lawsuit against the state, alleging that the firearms uniformity law—established in 2007 to prohibit subdivisions like cities from creating their gun control laws—was unconstitutional.
Although the Ohio Supreme Court had previously declared the preemption as lawful, the city acted as though these decisions never took place, passing its gun control measures during the legal dispute.
The decision by the Tenth District Court stated that Columbus failed to provide adequate proof of irreparable injury or harm to others and blamed the city’s “inartful drafting” for the previous wrongful injunction. The appellate court also criticized Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Stephen McIntosh for a delay in his judgment and the quality of his written opinion.
But this development isn’t solely about legal intricacies. At the heart of this debate is public safety and constitutional rights. Separate lawsuits from Ohio AG Yost and the Buckeye Institute accused Columbus of violating Ohioans’ Second Amendment rights. Columbus, in the interim, had established restrictions, including a limit on ammunition magazine capacity and a gun storage law. A notable case saw a defendant receiving a prison sentence after a child fired an unsecured firearm.
Read Related:
-
Seattle Mayor Exploits Triple Murder To Attack State Firearms Preemption Laws
-
Fargo, N.D. Argues “Home Rule” Allows it to Supersede State Preemption Law
Zach Klein, Columbus City Attorney, has defended these local gun restrictions as essential for violence prevention. He argued that if the state isn’t addressing gun violence, cities should step in.
“We’ve seen time and again that this legislature would rather pass more laws to appease gun lobbyists than listen to the people of Ohio,” he remarked. However, he noted that the recent ruling didn’t address the core issue: whether the state preemption law violates the city’s home rule rights. Klein has vowed to continue the legal fight.
On the other hand, proponents of the state’s preemption law, including Dean Rieck, Executive Director of the Buckeye Firearms Association, argue that the city’s lawsuit lacked merit from the outset. Rieck highlighted that the Ohio Supreme Court had twice found the firearm preemption law valid.
Judge Carly Edelstein, writing for the court, indicated that the timeliness of the injunction was a concern and that the lower court had shifted the burden of proof incorrectly. The panel ultimately concluded that the injunction against the state law “was an abuse of discretion.”
This proper decision underscores the ongoing tension between local gun banners and state jurisdictions on gun regulations, ensuring the constitutional right to carry arms. As the case returns to the Franklin County trial court for additional proceedings, freedom haters will continue to look for new ways to strip away your 2A rights.
Note: Research behind this article was generated using AI technology and may contain some automated content aggregation and analysis.
