Columbus ban hi cap mags

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: Columbus ban hi cap mags

Post by Bearable »

Berettas4me wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:58 pm As Dday approaches, are any AR owners actually even bothering to get rid of their 30 rounders?
I dont even know how they pull this off.
They cant/wont go door to door looking for them. We can just take smaller mags to the range for now so they arent seen until this idiocy blows over.
So whats the game plan here by this idiotic city?
Just talk tough at law abiding AR owners knowing its all hot air?

My guess is IF this is allowed to stand for now that city counsel pushes it even further down the road.
I would bet that the police have been told not to touch this with a 10 foot pole.
User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Columbus ban hi cap mags

Post by BB62 »

Bearable wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:07 pm
Berettas4me wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:58 pm As Dday approaches, are any AR owners actually even bothering to get rid of their 30 rounders?
I dont even know how they pull this off.
They cant/wont go door to door looking for them. We can just take smaller mags to the range for now so they arent seen until this idiocy blows over.
So whats the game plan here by this idiotic city?
Just talk tough at law abiding AR owners knowing its all hot air?

My guess is IF this is allowed to stand for now that city counsel pushes it even further down the road.
I would bet that the police have been told not to touch this with a 10 foot pole.
I thought I'd read that a judge had put the law on hold. Am I incorrect?

And, isn't the effective date later this summer anyway?
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making, running dog lackies of The Man. <wink> (thx grumpycoconut - OpenCarry.org)

Got Freedom?

Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
Berettas4me
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:05 am

Re: Columbus ban hi cap mags

Post by Berettas4me »

BB62 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:18 pm
I thought I'd read that a judge had put the law on hold. Am I incorrect?

And, isn't the effective date later this summer anyway?
I thought the date was June 1 but I could be wrong.
User avatar
BB62
Posts: 2601
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: Columbus ban hi cap mags

Post by BB62 »

Berettas4me wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:30 pm
BB62 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:18 pm
I thought I'd read that a judge had put the law on hold. Am I incorrect?

And, isn't the effective date later this summer anyway?
I thought the date was June 1 but I could be wrong.
This article says July 1

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/loc ... 950080007/

AND, here's a blast from the past: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/analysi ... city-limit
Yes, I do believe in open carry. An openly armed man is clear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are sneaks and skulkers and elitist, boot licking, political contribution making, running dog lackies of The Man. <wink> (thx grumpycoconut - OpenCarry.org)

Got Freedom?

Accountant, Computer & Management Consultant
Scuba Diver, NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor
M-Quigley
Posts: 4788
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Columbus ban hi cap mags

Post by M-Quigley »

BB62 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:18 pm
Bearable wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 2:07 pm
Berettas4me wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 12:58 pm As Dday approaches, are any AR owners actually even bothering to get rid of their 30 rounders?
I dont even know how they pull this off.
They cant/wont go door to door looking for them. We can just take smaller mags to the range for now so they arent seen until this idiocy blows over.
So whats the game plan here by this idiotic city?
Just talk tough at law abiding AR owners knowing its all hot air?

My guess is IF this is allowed to stand for now that city counsel pushes it even further down the road.
I would bet that the police have been told not to touch this with a 10 foot pole.
I thought I'd read that a judge had put the law on hold. Am I incorrect?

And, isn't the effective date later this summer anyway?
From the news link:
On Jan. 20, a Fairfield County judge denied the state of Ohio's request for a preliminary injunction to block the city's gun restrictions.

As a result, those restrictions were set to go into place at midnight Jan. 21, according to Klein.

On Feb. 16, The Buckeye Institute, a conservative think-tank, filed suit in Delaware County Common Pleas Court challenging the Columbus gun restrictions. Part of Columbus sits in Delaware County.
I don't know if or when a decision will be made by this liberal judge, and regardless of what he or she decides it will be appealed. I read somewhere the Ohio AG is involved also. If this liberal judge hands down a decision closer to July 1st an appeals court might issue a preliminary injunction.
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: Columbus ban hi cap mags

Post by Bearable »

Here is a link to Buckeye Institute's lawsuit against Columbus regarding hi capacity mags.
https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/librar ... lumbus.pdf
At Paragraph 8. they say: "The City of Columbus' violent crime rate, as referenced in the "Whereas Clauses"
of Ordinance 3176-2022, Ex. A at 1-2, cannot be used as an excuse to infringe upon the exercise of a fundamental right, whether it be the right to free speech, the right to assemble or the right to bear arms. Crime does not emanate from words, peaceable assembly, or the possession of firearm-loading devices in common usage (such as magazines), and legislative bans of any of these is not constitutionally permissible."

That is the only place they use the term "common usage." The paragraph is correct, but they failed to back it up by citing three USSC cases; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 U.S.1027 (2016) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, 597 US _ (2022).

All three of those cases makes it clear that if the arm or accessary is in common use it is protected by the Second Amendment.
30 plus round magazine capacity is not dangerous AND unusual. (It has to be both.) There are millions of 30 round plus magazines in use which makes them common and therefore protected.

The city ordinance is unconstitutional. Yet, Buckeye Institute never raised the federal issue. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The local judge has no choice but to find the city's ordinance unconstitutional.
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: Columbus ban hi cap mags

Post by Bearable »

Bearable wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 1:18 pm Here is a link to Buckeye Institute's lawsuit against Columbus regarding hi capacity mags.
https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/librar ... lumbus.pdf
At Paragraph 8. they say: "The City of Columbus' violent crime rate, as referenced in the "Whereas Clauses"
of Ordinance 3176-2022, Ex. A at 1-2, cannot be used as an excuse to infringe upon the exercise of a fundamental right, whether it be the right to free speech, the right to assemble or the right to bear arms. Crime does not emanate from words, peaceable assembly, or the possession of firearm-loading devices in common usage (such as magazines), and legislative bans of any of these is not constitutionally permissible."

That is the only place they use the term "common usage." The paragraph is correct, but they failed to back it up by citing three USSC cases; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 U.S.1027 (2016) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, 597 US _ (2022).

All three of those cases makes it clear that if the arm or accessary is in common use it is protected by the Second Amendment.
30 plus round magazine capacity is not dangerous AND unusual. (It has to be both.) There are millions of 30 round plus magazines in use which makes them common and therefore protected.

The city ordinance is unconstitutional. Yet, Buckeye Institute never raised the federal issue. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The local judge has no choice but to find the city's ordinance unconstitutional.
Additionally, the Supreme court in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) stated: "The Supremacy Clause provides that “the Judges in every State shall be bound” by the Federal Constitution, “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, cl. 2. “[T]his Clause creates a rule of decision” directing state courts that they “must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal law[ ].” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U. S. 320, 324 (2015)."

The judge has no choice but find the Columbus Ordinance unconstitutional.
M-Quigley
Posts: 4788
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Columbus ban hi cap mags

Post by M-Quigley »

It was reported on the LEPD radio show that Cabela's is temporarily not selling AR's due to this law, until they can sell them with something less than a 30 round magazine, unless the law gets ruled against. Does anyone have any idea when the judge is going to issue a ruling?
Bearable
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
Location: South of I-70

Re: Columbus ban hi cap mags

Post by Bearable »

It appears that the judge granted a preliminary injunction against Columbus.

https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/resear ... -ordinance

Judgment Entry (1) Granting the Plaintiffs' 2/24/23
Motion Seeking Leave to Proceed Pseudon5,,rnously, (2) Denying
the Defendants' 2/21/23 and 3/24/23 Motions to Dismiss the
Case or Transfer Venue, and (B) Granting the Plaintiffs' 2/16/23
and.3/17/23 Motions for a Preliminary Injunction

https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/librar ... lumbus.pdf
Post Reply