Misdemeanor under Disability?

[GlockMan27]

Judge ruled ban on bump stocks unconstitutional so that was certainly a win for Columbus. But I'm a bit confused about what he did rule constitutional, making firearm possession under disability a misdemeanor. Zach Klein stated, "This decision is a huge win for common-sense gun regulations...", but isn't this already a felony? What did he win? Trying to reduce the penalty all to keep Columbus safer?

[JustaShooter]

But I'm a bit confused about what he did rule constitutional, making firearm possession under disability a misdemeanor. Zach Klein stated, "This decision is a huge win for common-sense gun regulations...", but isn't this already a felony?

Yup.

What did he win? Trying to reduce the penalty all to keep Columbus safer?

LOL pretty much - all it allows them to do is charge the violator under the City ordinance and thus keep the fine, etc.

[cashman966]

I thought the Columbus code was written to put a person convicted of a misdemeanor DV under disability. Current State law requires a felony DV for disability.

I think the judge erred in in his opinion, I agree that this part of the City code is not in conflict with 9.58 but only because federal law puts a disability in place on misdemeanor DV. The Judge says it isn't in conflict with with 9.68 because the ORC does not address the issue. But that silence is covered under 9.68 when it states

Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.

If there were no federal disability, a misdemeanor DV disability would be a further restriction not allowed under 9.68 because it is not IN the ORC. The exact reason it is a further restriction is because the ORC is silent on the issue. But since it is not a further restriction under Federal law it is not in conflict with 9.68.

Using the Judge's logic, since the ORC does not address gun registration a municipal code requiring it would not be in conflict.

In regards to Columbus Codified Ordinance §2323.13(A)(3), the Court must side with Columbus. R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) only prohibits people convicted of a felony crime of violence from owning a firearm. It does not address misdemeanor crimes of violence. Since this is so, Columbus Codified Ordinance §2323.13(A)(3) does not forbid something that R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) allows or allow something that R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) forbids. Since this is so, Columbus Codified Ordinance §2323.13(A)(3) does not conflict with R.C. 2923.13(A)(2). Furthermore, the Court finds that Columbus Codified Ordinance §2323.13, as a whole, does not conflict with either R.C. 2923.13 nor R.C. 9.68.