A sub-forum for the purpose of discussing ORC 9.68 compliance. This sub-forum is strictly for the discussion of progress in individual cities and their respective parks.
Forum rules
This sub-forum is strictly for the purpose of submitting of, and status updates related to, ORC 9.68 compliance. This could mean park bans, open carry bans, or anything that is a compliance issue. Note the format in which original threads were created. We'll track each individual case here and post updates if assistance is needed, etc. You may start a new thread here to notify us of a non-compliant scenario. Please try to research contact information for each city, village, etc, Email, fax, and postal addresses are great. Digital photos of infractions (Signs) are ideal. With limited exceptions this is NOT a discussion forum.
"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...
“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”― George Carlin
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.
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.
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.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan
"When democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote." ~ Mike Vanderboegh
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.