Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

From WLWT

Here we go. While I have no interest in the devices, I feel this is a very slippery slope.

In just the last few minutes (3 pm 5/9/2018) Cincinnati city council passed a "no bump stocks" law for the city limits. They are claiming bump stocks are an accessory and therefore are not covered by Ohio's preemption laws prohibiting cities from making their own gun laws. Seems like a very gray area. I smell a lawsuit.

Bob

ulwbob wrote:They are claiming bump stocks are an accessory and therefore are not covered by Ohio's preemption laws prohibiting cities from making their own gun laws.

Certainly violates the spirit and intent of RC 9.68, and takes some serious twisting to get there.

I haven't read the actual ordinance yet, but it nearly HAS TO violate ORC 9.68. Sue, sue, sue...before BFA do. Actually, maybe we have something here that ALL the grassroots gun rights groups can jump in the ring about at the same time.

We have three threads going on about this right now, with more to come, unless a coord wants to consolidate them.

ulwbob wrote:In just the last few minutes (3 pm 5/9/2018) Cincinnati city council passed a "no bump stocks" law for the city limits. They are claiming bump stocks are an accessory and therefore are not covered by Ohio's preemption laws prohibiting cities from making their own gun laws. Seems like a very gray area. I smell a lawsuit.

Bob

While debating, one councilman named Pastor warned the other members that they we inviting a lawsuit. They did it anyhow.

Brian D. wrote:I haven't read the actual ordinance yet, but it nearly HAS TO violate ORC 9.68.

Their claim that a bump stock is an accessory, and therefore isn't "any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition" and thus not covered under the letter of 9.68, which allows them to regulate it is not without merit. However, as I said elsewhere, it certainly *does* violate the spirit and intent of the statute.

Brian D. wrote:We have three threads going on about this right now, with more to come, unless a coord wants to consolidate them.

I'm on it.

Mustang380gal wrote:

Brian D. wrote:We have three threads going on about this right now, with more to come, unless a coord wants to consolidate them.

I'm on it.

Beat me by literally a second.

And yes, this is a very slippery slope. Cincinnati is claiming it's an accessory and not a component. They are claiming a component is a required piece to fire a gun. Whereas an access is not required. Under their logic, they could ban any holster that is not level 3. A few coords think it could mean banning a match grade trigger.

Unfortunately, I can see part of their logic. I think the spirit of the law was accessory = component. The question will be do the courts agree.

AND THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF A LiL PLASTIC STOCK **THAT NO ONE CARED ABOUT** HAS BEEN REVEALED.

Perhaps this is the time to test the political waters of our AG wanting to be Gov , and ask for an official opinion. A stock, any stock, throughout history, isn't considered a component of a firearm?

WhyNot wrote:AND THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF A LiL PLASTIC STOCK **THAT NO ONE CARED ABOUT** HAS BEEN REVEALED.

Perhaps this is the time to test the political waters of our AG wanting to be Gov , and ask for an official opinion. A stock, any stock, throughout history, isn't considered a component of a firearm?

I would bet Dewine won't touch it.

qmti wrote:

WhyNot wrote:AND THE SLIPPERY SLOPE OF A LiL PLASTIC STOCK **THAT NO ONE CARED ABOUT** HAS BEEN REVEALED.

Perhaps this is the time to test the political waters of our AG wanting to be Gov , and ask for an official opinion. A stock, any stock, throughout history, isn't considered a component of a firearm?

I would bet Dewine won't touch it.

It's been firmly established that the AG only gives legal opinions to agents and agencies of the State of Ohio. Us mere citizens don't get the time of day.

Brian D. wrote:Sue, sue, sue...before BFA do.

BFA doesn't have the track record of using the legal system to defend gun rights that OFCC has, In fact, I can only think of only one lawsuit BFA has filed during its existence and that was against the city of Cleveland. When Cleveland filed its challenge to state preemption, the BFA case was put on hold until the Cleveland case was resolved by the Ohio Supreme Court. That decision made the BFA case moot.

rickt wrote:

Brian D. wrote:Sue, sue, sue...before BFA do.

BFA doesn't have the track record of using the legal system to defend gun rights that OFCC has, In fact, I can only think of only one lawsuit BFA has filed during its existence and that was against the city of Cleveland. When Cleveland filed its challenge to state preemption, the BFA case was put on hold until the Cleveland case was resolved by the Ohio Supreme Court. That decision made the BFA case moot.

Well, they are threatening to do so...

http://wcbe.org/post/pro-gun-group-thre ... ordinances" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JustaShooter wrote:

rickt wrote:

Brian D. wrote:Sue, sue, sue...before BFA do.

BFA doesn't have the track record of using the legal system to defend gun rights that OFCC has, In fact, I can only think of only one lawsuit BFA has filed during its existence and that was against the city of Cleveland. When Cleveland filed its challenge to state preemption, the BFA case was put on hold until the Cleveland case was resolved by the Ohio Supreme Court. That decision made the BFA case moot.

Well, they are threatening to do so...

http://wcbe.org/post/pro-gun-group-thre ... ordinances" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fine. Let them spend their money for a change.