Bowling Green

[ArmedAviator]

Found this one this morning. There are probably other out of compliance firearms laws in the city ordinances, but I have not had time to take a look.

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/ ... 3.0#LPHit1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

§ 137.04 IMPROPERLY HANDLING FIREARMS IN A MOTOR VEHICLE.
(K) As used in this section:
[....]
UNLOADED . Means any of the following:
(a) No ammunition is in the firearm in question, and no ammunition is loaded into a magazine or speed loader that may be used with the firearm in question and that is located anywhere within the vehicle in question, without regard to where ammunition otherwise is located within the vehicle in question. For the purposes of division (a) of this definition, ammunition held in stripper-clips or in en-bloc clips is not considered ammunition that is loaded into a magazine or speed loader.
(b) with respect to a firearm employing a percussion cap, flintlock, or other obsolete ignition system, when the weapon is uncapped or when the priming charge is removed from the pan.

[ArmedAviator]

If anybody else finds anything let me know. I will make contact this evening after work.

[ArmedAviator]

I also found this ban on firearms in parks.

97.05(C)

Hunting and firearms. Hunt, trap, or pursue wildlife at any time. No person shall use, carry, or possess firearms of any description, or air rifles, paint ball guns, spring guns, bows and arrows, slings, or any other form of weapon potentially inimical to wildlife or dangerous to human safety, or any instrument that can be loaded with and fire blank cartridges, paintballs, pointed projectiles or any kind of trapping device. Shooting into park areas from beyond park boundaries is forbidden.

I emailed the Mayor and Council last night regarding these two issues. Awaiting reply.

[ArmedAviator]

So far no response from the Mayor's office, the Councilman for my ward, or the city attorney.

[stew47]

Good luck with getting things squared away. I'm a guest of your fine town once or twice a year.

[ArmedAviator]

I did receive a response from the city attorney. He forwarded me a letter that he had sent to the city Municipal Adminitrator.

It reads as follows:

October 16, 2013

Mr. John Fawcett

Re: Correspondence from redacted

Dear John,

I reviewed the correspondence that the Mayor apparently received from redacted concerning guns, ammunition, etc.

It has been my opinion, that the legislature took its most active and comprehensive action on gun legislation last year, and specifically with Revised Code Section 2923 et seq., that the State of Ohio has completely preempted the field with respect to gun legislation and ammunition legislation. In fact, that legislation prohibited other government entities within the State of Ohio from deviating from state law in all respects, in my opinion.

Accordingly, it has been my opinion since the passage of that act that our code sections are moot, and no longer effective, with respect to conflicts that may have existed.

I guess what I am saying is that I agree with Mr. redacted’s analysis of the differing language. Where I differ is the need to take any action, inasmuch as state law now completely controls that area and that is how we have proceeded since the passage of the legislation.

If there comes a time in the future where the legislature once again permits local regulation of guns and ammunition, then it may be worth taking a look at our entire code section. Until that day comes, as far as I’m concerned, the only effective legislation in our state is the Ohio Revised Code.

Does this help at all? I know it has been the position of the Law Department for some time, as well as the Police Division.

(emphasis mine)

Basically the city attorney says that the offending ordinances on the books does not need to be removed. I believe that we are all in agreement that this is not the case, despite that the city does not enforce these ordinances.

BriKuz, what to do next?

[ArmedAviator]

Just sent this back to the city attorney:

Dear Mr. Marsh,

Thank you very much for promptly getting back to me.

I am glad to hear that everyone seems to be on the same page in terms of the ineffectiveness of the city ordinances. However, I must disagree with your recommendation of taking no action to remove or amend the ordinances.

Of immediate concern, the City of Bowling Green is currently liable to a civil lawsuit to force the changes of the conflicting ordinances. The city would be held financially liable for all costs incurred, per O.R.C. 9.68 (B).

While the city's current administration clearly has good understanding of the issue, a future administration change, law enforcement training, or a communication failure may lead to an illegal detention or arrest, leaving the city open to a civil rights lawsuit.

As you said in your letter to Mr. Fawcett, these ordinances are moot and unenforceable. As such, I urge you to recommend, to the City Council, the complete removal or amendment of the ordinances to align them with the Ohio Revised Code.

Sincerely,

redacted

[BriKuz]

Just sent this back to the city attorney:

Dear Mr. Marsh,

Thank you very much for promptly getting back to me.

I am glad that everyone seems to be on the same page in terms of the ineffectiveness of the city ordinances. However, I must disagree with your recommendation of taking no action to remove or amend the ordinances.

Of immediate concern, the City of Bowling Green is currently liable to a civil lawsuit to force the changes of the conflicting ordinances. The city would be held financially liable for all costs, per O.R.C. 9.68 (B).

While the city's current administration clearly has good understanding of the issue, a future administration change, law enforcement training, or a communication failure may lead to an illegal detention or arrest, leaving the city open to a civil rights lawsuit.

As you said in your letter to Mr. Fawcett, these ordinances are moot and unenforceable. As such, I urge you to remove them or make the correct changes to align them with the Ohio Revised Code.

Sincerely,

redacted

+1

Keep us informed... too bad you didn't throw the "Look at Oberlin, they're getting sued for an unenforceable law as we speak" card... lmao

[Werz]

Basically the city attorney says that the offending ordinances on the books does not need to be removed. I believe that we are all in agreement that this is not the case, despite that the city does not enforce these ordinances.

BriKuz, what to do next?

This one could be quite interesting. I've only been back to Bowling Green a few time since I graduated from the university 35 years ago.

What could make this particularly interesting is some parallel case law that I have cited here before. Given the definitions set forth in the relevant Ohio statute, Ohio case law has repeatedly held that a woman cannot be convicted of Public Indecency for baring her breasts in a public place. However, at an "event" in a Bowling Green city park, not unlike our open carry event in Oberlin, a young woman was convicted of Disorderly Conduct for going topless, and that conviction was upheld by the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals. City of Bowling Green v. Bourne, 2007-Ohio-5748. I wonder how the City of Bowling Green would react to open carry event in one of their city parks.

And I imagine Janae could really stir the pot on this one ...

[ArmedAviator]

Keep us informed... too bad you didn't throw the "Look at Oberlin, they're getting sued for an unenforceable law as we speak" card... lmao

I was thinking of throwing that in there, but I couldn't word it in a way that I thought was very productive. If the response is poor next time, I will bring that up.

[BriKuz]

Basically the city attorney says that the offending ordinances on the books does not need to be removed. I believe that we are all in agreement that this is not the case, despite that the city does not enforce these ordinances.

BriKuz, what to do next?

This one could be quite interesting. I've only been back to Bowling Green a few time since I graduated from the university 35 years ago.

What could make this particularly interesting is some parallel case law that I have cited here before. Given the definitions set forth in the relevant Ohio statute, Ohio case law has repeatedly held that a woman cannot be convicted of Public Indecency for baring her breasts in a public place. However, at an "event" in a Bowling Green city park, not unlike our open carry event in Oberlin, a young woman was convicted of Disorderly Conduct for going topless, and that conviction was upheld by the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals. City of Bowling Green v. Bourne, 2007-Ohio-5748. I wonder how the City of Bowling Green would react to open carry event in one of their city parks.

And I imagine Janae could really stir the pot on this one ...

"open carry", hunh? she only "open carries" THOSE while feeding Connor... she prefers to carry THOSE discreetly, unless necessary lmao

[Brian D.]

"open carry", hunh? she only "open carries" THOSE while feeding Connor... she prefers to carry THOSE discreetly, unless necessary lmao

Given my professional background, and ownership of a hippie costume--guess y'all will wanna put me in charge of any bra burning that takes place during the event.

[Werz]

And I imagine Janae could really stir the pot on this one ...

"open carry", hunh? she only "open carries" THOSE while feeding Connor... she prefers to carry THOSE discreetly, unless necessary lmao

I was just amused at the cognitive dissonance that was created amongst all the progressive women at the park in Oberlin:

"Oh, how sweet! She's openly breastfeeding her baby in the park ... OH MY GOD, SHE'S GOT A GUN!!!"

[JustaShooter]

"Oh, how sweet! She's openly breastfeeding her baby in the park ... OH MY GOD, SHE'S GOT A GUN!!!"

Funniest. Line. Ever!

[JustJack]

"Oh, how sweet! She's openly breastfeeding her baby in the park ... OH MY GOD, SHE'S GOT A GUN!!!"

Werz, I think you just won the internet with that one.