Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

So far this is just chatter. Would ORC 9.68 disallow an ordinance of this type at the city level?

Since it is an accessory not a firearm I wouldn't think 9.68 covers it.

At the moment 9.68 probably doesn't cover it.

But if the feds suddenly start deciding that bumpstocks are in and of themselves firearms (a possible outcome) then ironically 9.68 would cover them. Might be a strictly academic matter if the feds ban them, though.

Still, I'm thinking there are plenty of ordinances that Ohio cities ALREADY have on their books that we can press to get repealed. After all...we beat Oberlin and Cleveland. I rather doubt any other city wants to take the same whipping.

Morne wrote:At the moment 9.68 probably doesn't cover it.

But if the feds suddenly start deciding that bumpstocks are in and of themselves firearms (a possible outcome) then ironically 9.68 would cover them. Might be a strictly academic matter if the feds ban them, though.

Except that unless Ohio changes its definition of a firearm the federal definition of same is irrelevant. Remember how Ohio used to consider a regular semi-automatic holding 31+ rounds to be an automatic? Under Ohio law a "firearm" means any deadly weapon capable of expelling or propelling one or more projectiles by the action of an explosive or combustible propellant. "Firearm" includes an unloaded firearm, and any firearm that is inoperable but that can readily be rendered operable. ORC 2923.11 (B).

But you are correct that it would largely be an academic exercise if they became federally illegal. Local authorities couldn't make arrests but they could/would gladly make referrals to ATF.

Cincinnati leaders think they've found a loophole in state law that will allow them to ban bump stocks in the city.

A bump stock isn't a gun "component," but instead is an "accessory," council attorneys say in a legal opinion released Monday by Councilman PG Sittenfeld. There's no Ohio court precedent on what counts as a component, city solicitor Paula Boggs Muething wrote, but the word's definition indicates component means a part of a gun. Therefore, she reasoned, a bump stock is not a firearm but a separate attachment or accessory.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... a_loo.html

On the plus side, if DOJ relabels them as "machine guns" as have been proposed in atleast one Federal bill, the Hughes Amendment will need to be changed, thus opening up the registry of automatic rifles. I'm sure clever people can see the benefit to us of that overlooked side-effect.

That has got to be some of the most convoluted BS I've heard in a while. How in the world is it not a component? It replaces the stock; it is not an add-on.

rickt wrote:

Cincinnati leaders think they've found a loophole in state law that will allow them to ban bump stocks in the city.

A bump stock isn't a gun "component," but instead is an "accessory," council attorneys say in a legal opinion released Monday by Councilman PG Sittenfeld. There's no Ohio court precedent on what counts as a component, city solicitor Paula Boggs Muething wrote, but the word's definition indicates component means a part of a gun. Therefore, she reasoned, a bump stock is not a firearm but a separate attachment or accessory.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf ... a_loo.html

What is the difference between a "component" and an "accessory?"

Can Cincinnati handle any more lawsuits right now? News makes it seem like they are falling apart greatly from scandals at the top.

It's simple to see why Cincinnati is doing this.

Optics. Pure and simple.

The Feds look like they're going to ban them -- so this is futile, right ???

Not in the mind of a Liberal Progressive. "ME, TOO, ME, TOO! !!"

SO weary of this garbage..................

Should we spend the money to try to get an injunction to stop it from being enforced?

*We still haven't received a dime from Cleveland nor Oberlin, and we spent a lot of dimes on them

Keep in mind so far this is just a proposal. I would recommend maybe someone drafting a letter to someone that it wouldn't be a wise move. Since the City Manager just resigned, not sure who best to draft one too.

''We still haven't received a dime from Cleveland nor Oberlin, and we spent a lot of dimes on them''

Didnt the judge issue time limit for payment? And within judgements I would suppose is interest$$ language

As far as component vs accessory, if they r going to use made up 'definitions' , where does a 30 round mag clip fit?

And yes I do agree draft a letter. Free (almost) feathers in OFCC's hat

WhyNot wrote:''We still haven't received a dime from Cleveland nor Oberlin, and we spent a lot of dimes on them''

Didnt the judge issue time limit for payment? And within judgements I would suppose is interest$$ language

Actually, the Supreme Court sent it to the lower court to determine how much is "reasonable" attorney costs.
It's a fight every step of the way, even after we've won.
We might have several grand in a single motion and they rule twelve hundred is "reasonable"

The laymen's term for that is called "it sucks"