On Wednesday, the Ohio First District Court of Appeals rejected Cincinnati’s challenge to the state’s firearm preemption statute and reversed the lower court’s order preliminarily enjoining portions of the statute.
The legislature first preempted localities from regulating firearms in 2007. In doing so, it recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is a “fundamental individual right” that is a “constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio” but that there was a “need to provide uniform laws throughout the state” regulating ownership and possession of firearms.
As soon as that statute took effect, the City of Cleveland challenged it, alleging that the law infringed on the city’s constitutional home-rule authority. And in 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against Cleveland and upheld the preemption statute.
The preemption statute was expanded twice since then, in 2018 and 2022. It now forbids localities from enacting more restrictions and covers knives. However, some localities in the Buckeye State would prefer to restrict our “fundamental individual right” and see the preemption statute as an obstacle.
Cincinnati challenged the preemption statute using the same arguments that Cleveland unsuccessfully made in 2007, and some newer frivolous ones. It found some early success in the trial court. Although the trial court correctly ruled that it was bound by the 2010 Ohio Supreme Court decision upholding the original preemption statute, it deviated from the Supreme Court’s ruling and preliminary enjoined the amendments to the statute.
But the Court of Appeals reversed. In a thoroughly written opinion, it found that the new preemption amendments did not violate Cincinnati’s home-rule authority for the same reason that the original statute did not violate Cleveland’s. “The real surprise is that the case made it this far,” said Michael Jean, Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation’s Litigation Counsel. “It should have been thrown out for the same reasons that the City of Cleveland’s case was fourteen years ago.”
Cincinnati also argued that the preemption violated its freedom of speech rights by prohibiting it to speak through enacting preempted ordinances. The court rejected that argument. “That free speech argument is backwards,” Jean continued. “Free speech protections don’t allow you to do illegal things just because speech is a necessary component. If that were the case, then all laws prohibiting the sale of illegal drugs would be unconstitutional because the sale would always involve some communication that couldn’t take place under the prohibition. But it doesn’t work that way.” This is a good decision, but it isn’t the end for firearms preemption litigation in Ohio. Cincinnati has the option to appeal the case. And there are three different cases challenging the City of Columbus’s ordinance banning certain firearm magazines.
About the Sportsmen’s Alliance: The Sportsmen’s Alliance and its supporting Foundation protect and defend America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing and trapping – that generate the money to pay for them. The organization accomplishes this mission through several distinct programs, including public education, advocacy, litigation and research. Stay connected to the Sportsmen’s Alliance: Online, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
