Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

Is the new law in columbus banning hi cap magazines being discussed here?

I haven't seen anything elsewhere about it yet, so this is as good of a place as any.

I do know AG Yost filed suit against them, but haven't seen anything since then.

Yost asked for an injunction but was denied. The ban goes into effect midnight tonight. The ban is for magazines of 30 rounds or more. Two more pieces of the restrictions, If you have children in the house firearms must be safely stored . number2 you cannot sell a firearm to anyone who is disqualified from owning a firearm. Ag Yost is planning an appellate referal.

Columbus will lose but they won't be punished for violating ORC 9.68. So, they'll pull the same stunt again sooner or later. Without serious enforcement teeth, statewide preemption is a big fat stupid joke.

Bring back tarring and feathering, Ohio General Assembly.

I've brought up solutions to stop the Electeds from ruling with extreme authority to the determent of the law.

Speaking of the Electeds, does there alleged 'ban' apply to the passerby driving down highway?

Will they put up big signs like the hazardous carrier bypass?

I'm glad Columbus lawmakers have nothing else important to do other than wasting time on silly laws like this.

It used to be what on my way from home in one Central Ohio 'burb to my range in another Central Ohio 'burb, I would drive thru Columbus City Limits for about 30 seconds. Sometimes I would stop and get a soft drink on the way home at a business that was in the city limits. I guess Columbus won't be getting my business there anymore on range day.

This is too vague to hold up in court. Read this section regarding high-capacity magazines. In one part they state "30 or more rounds". A bit farther down the wording states "more than 30 rounds".. Which is it, kids??

N: "Large capacity magazine" means any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, clip or other similar device that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, thirty (30) or more rounds of ammunition for use in a
firearm. A “large capacity magazine” does not include any of the following:

(1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than thirty rounds of ammunition. (My 30 round mags cannot "accomodate more than 30 rounds". Can yours??) I would thing this alone is enough to get it thrown out.


(2) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device;
(3) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm;
(4) A magazine that is permanently inoperable.

pwhited11 wrote:This is too vague to hold up in court.

You may or may not be correct, at least regarding the lower courts this case passes through. And since the make up of the Ohio Supremes has changed a little to the left, I'm not 100% sure about them, either.

pwhited11 wrote: (1) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than thirty rounds of ammunition. (My 30 round mags cannot "accomodate more than 30 rounds". Can yours??) I would thing this alone is enough to get it thrown out.

So let's say we have a plaintiff who gets his AR mags seized by the Columbus police department. They are, ostensibly, 30 rounders. But in court, the prosecutor shows that they can be pressed a little hard and accept a 31st round. (Some of mine are like that, though it would be tough to feed them into the msg well with the bolt closed.) Or, they could get, uh, modified, while in the PD property room. Then it's a matter of "I said/They said" between the accused and the city to determine who wielded the wire cutters. Guess who a judge--or maybe even a jury--would believe?

Brian D. wrote:

pwhited11 wrote:This is too vague to hold up in court.

You may or may not be correct, at least regarding the lower courts this case passes through. And since the make up of the Ohio Supremes has changed a little to the left, I'm not 100% sure about them, either.

I thought I read all the justices that won in November were allegedly conservative Republicans now that their political identity is no longer hidden from the voters. How did it go to the left?

Regarding the mag ban, LEPD gun store claims they are going to be selling 29 round magazines, sort of a protest thing I guess.

A couple of questions, who pays the legal fees for the plantiffs that want to sue the city over this when they eventually lose, and how does this new law affect sales at the Columbus gun shows?

I'll have to get back to you on that M-Q. Right off the top of my head I can't remember the names of even one OSC justice right now. That stuff fades away a few days after any election.

You know what? Since former Hamilton County prosecutor Joe Deters got in as a replacement, we're probably okay gun rights wise. Note my lack of overwhelming faith in ALL politicians, however.

WhyNot wrote:I've brought up solutions to stop the Electeds from ruling with extreme authority to the determent of the law.

Speaking of the Electeds, does there alleged 'ban' apply to the passerby driving down highway?

I haven't read it but according to the LEPD radio show on 610am, the shows host claim the city said it does. I thought there was a federal law though that if someone is driving on a highway and is just passing through an area they are legal. It's the same law NJ allegedly ignores every chance they get. That law might only apply to interstate highways though.

M-Quigley wrote:

WhyNot wrote:I've brought up solutions to stop the Electeds from ruling with extreme authority to the determent of the law.

Speaking of the Electeds, does there alleged 'ban' apply to the passerby driving down highway?

I haven't read it but according to the LEPD radio show on 610am, the shows host claim the city said it does. I thought there was a federal law though that if someone is driving on a highway and is just passing through an area they are legal. It's the same law NJ allegedly ignores every chance they get. That law might only apply to interstate highways though.

"18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console."