Columbus Muni Code

[docachna]

If there was a previous post about Columbus municipal code violating R.C. 9.68, I guess I missed it, but after running across a couple of sections which appeared to conflict with that section, and Cleveland v. State, I wrote the Columbus City Attorney’s office. I raised these sections:

Section 2323.12, which appears to impose an outright and total ban on carrying of concealed weapons within the Columbus city limits, and has no exception for individuals who have been issued an OLTCACH;

Section 2323.16, which appears to impose certain restrictions concerning the transport of loaded firearms in motor vehicles within the Columbus city limits;

Section 2323.20, which appears to prohibit an individual from selling a firearm to another person within the Columbus city limits without obtaining a permit from the City of Columbus;

Section 2323.31,which appears to impose an outright ban on the possession of "assault weapons" within the Columbus city limits, as that term is defined in Section 2323.11 (L);

Section 2323.32, which appears to impose an outright ban on possession of "large capacity magazines", which are defined as any magazine with a capacity exceeding 20 rounds.

I sent an e-mail Sunday evening, asking if they were still on the books, and if so, whether they had advised LEO's not to enforce them, and also whether they envisioned repealing them and any other conflicting code sections. Today I received this reply from Chief Counsel in Richard Pfeiffer’s office:


City Attorney Pfeiffer has forwarded your email to me for review and response. Please be advised that the City has complied with R.C. 9.68 since it went into effect in 2007 by enforcing only state and federal law, and non-conflicting City ordinances, with respect to firearm-related provisions. Conflicting ordinances in the Columbus City Code, while still “on the books”, are not enforced. We intend to seek the formal repeal of those conflicting ordinances in the near future in light of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in the Cleveland case.

I'll be checking City Council agenda to see when legislation is introduced repealing these code sections. I guess Cleveland v. State convinced them that this bus has left the station. However, hats off to Richard Pfeiffer's office for a prompt reply.

[BobK]

Nice. They just need to keep Coleman out of the loop.

[AndMetal]

Looks like Chapter 545 has some more junk. For example:

545.06 - Weapon transaction permit required.
(a) No person shall purchase or take possession of any lawful weapon without first procuring from the license section a valid weapon transaction permit.
(b) No weapon transaction permit shall be issued until at least seven (7) days have elapsed from the date of the permit application.
(c) This section does not apply to transactions involving firearms defined as antiques, curios or collectibles.

[schmieg]

Wow! I bought a Ruger Redhawk .44 mag off Gerald Valentino in a parking lot near the Capitol back in 2006. I had driven up from Cincinnati and I'm sure he wasn't aware of that at the time.