Page 1 of 1

Restricting Magazine Capacity

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:01 pm
by scottb
If a city ordinance states that
"Automatic firearm" also means any semi-automatic firearm designed or specially adapted to fire more than thirty-one cartridges without reloading, other than a firearm chambering only .22 caliber short, long or long-rifle cartridges."
is it a legal ordinance?

This whole definition, I believe, was a copy of the State definition. Now that the State has modified its definition, I assume that cities will, in due time, modify their ordinances as well. I will hold my breath...

Re: Restricting Magazine Capacity

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:28 pm
by djthomas
If you're asking about Wooster specifically, then yes I believe it's a legal ordinance. Superfluous for sure, but not contrary to 9.68.

Re: Restricting Magazine Capacity

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:36 pm
by TJW815
You should let your city council know that they are no longer in line with the state definition of an "automatic firearm"

Re: Restricting Magazine Capacity

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:55 pm
by djthomas
TJW815 wrote:You should let your city council know that they are no longer in line with the state definition of an "automatic firearm"
And if they wanted to be snippy about it they'd say "so what, it's not like we're actually using that definition for anything..." ;) Again, this assumes we're talking about Wooster only.

Re: Restricting Magazine Capacity

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:08 pm
by pirateguy191
djthomas wrote:If you're asking about Wooster specifically, then yes I believe it's a legal ordinance. Superfluous for sure, but not contrary to 9.68.
How does it not go against 9.68?

Re: Restricting Magazine Capacity

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:31 pm
by djthomas
pirateguy191 wrote:
djthomas wrote:If you're asking about Wooster specifically, then yes I believe it's a legal ordinance. Superfluous for sure, but not contrary to 9.68.
How does it not go against 9.68?
Because Wooster has no corresponding ordinance prohibiting the possession of a firearm meeting that definition. Nothing in 9.68 prohibits them from defining anything they want. It's only when they try to criminalize certain conduct contrary to state law that there's a problem. Looks to me like they cleared the books of all firearms offenses except discharging within the city limits.

Re: Restricting Magazine Capacity

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:39 pm
by pirateguy191
djthomas wrote:
pirateguy191 wrote:
djthomas wrote:If you're asking about Wooster specifically, then yes I believe it's a legal ordinance. Superfluous for sure, but not contrary to 9.68.
How does it not go against 9.68?
Because Wooster has no corresponding ordinance prohibiting the possession of a firearm meeting that definition. Nothing in 9.68 prohibits them from defining anything they want. It's only when they try to criminalize certain conduct contrary to state law that there's a problem. Looks to me like they cleared the books of all firearms offenses except discharging within the city limits.
Gotcha, I wasn't paying much attention.

Re: Restricting Magazine Capacity

Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:49 pm
by TJW815
djthomas wrote:
TJW815 wrote:You should let your city council know that they are no longer in line with the state definition of an "automatic firearm"
And if they wanted to be snippy about it they'd say "so what, it's not like we're actually using that definition for anything..." ;) Again, this assumes we're talking about Wooster only.
I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. I mean they make good paint brushes and stuff.

Re: Restricting Magazine Capacity

Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:31 am
by scottb
Looks like djthomas is correct - the city of Wooster does not have an ordinance prohibiting possession. I will stick to engineering. Thanks.

Re: Restricting Magazine Capacity

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:35 pm
by troy bilt
So its totally legal to walk around Wooster with a automatic firearm with no stamp :roll:

Re: Restricting Magazine Capacity

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:08 pm
by JustaShooter
troy bilt wrote:So its totally legal to walk around Wooster with a automatic firearm with no stamp :roll:
As far as the city of Wooster is concerned, yes. Ohio and Federal law, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter...

Re: Restricting Magazine Capacity

Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:46 pm
by djthomas
JustaShooter wrote:
troy bilt wrote:So its totally legal to walk around Wooster with a automatic firearm with no stamp :roll:
As far as the city of Wooster is concerned, yes. Ohio and Federal law, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter...
And by the way, City of Wooster LEOs are fully empowered to arrest and charge under the pertinent state statues.