Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

rickt wrote:

Bearable wrote:I'm glad all this information is available on the internet.
The complaint contains 7 counts.
All those issues raised by the city have already been raised and decided by the Ohio Supreme Court.
ORC 9.68 is a general law. The rewording of ORC 9.68 has not changed the essence of its meaning or purpose.
The lawsuit should easily be viewed by the court as frivolous and dismiss it as "a matter already judged" by the court.
You cannot sue (re-litigate) over an issue that has already been decided by the court.

But, we know how local courts deal with local issues.

I'm doing this from memory because I'm too lazy to look it up, but for a state law to override home rule, it has to be a "general law of the state". Previously, there was a three-prong test to see if the law met the requirements. Columbus is claiming a 2017 OSC decision changed this and hence they get to challenge ORC 9.68 because of that change.

The city cited Dayton v. State, 151 Ohio St.3d 168, 2017-0hio-6909 claiming the Ohio Supreme Court found three separate provisions of the Ohio Revised Code to unconstitutionally interfere with the rights of municipalities to use traffic cameras because they were not general laws.

The Dayton case points to Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149, 2002-Ohio-2005, 766 N.E.2d 963, for determining whether a statute constitutes a general law. And, that is a four-part test.

The way I see it the Dayton case does not help the city. ORC 9.68 has already been declared a general law. Also, the Dayton case dealt specifically with traffic laws which were never general laws in Ohio, as such.

rickt wrote:

Bearable wrote:I'm glad all this information is available on the internet.
The complaint contains 7 counts.
All those issues raised by the city have already been raised and decided by the Ohio Supreme Court.
ORC 9.68 is a general law. The rewording of ORC 9.68 has not changed the essence of its meaning or purpose.
The lawsuit should easily be viewed by the court as frivolous and dismiss it as "a matter already judged" by the court.
You cannot sue (re-litigate) over an issue that has already been decided by the court.

But, we know how local courts deal with local issues.

I'm doing this from memory because I'm too lazy to look it up, but for a state law to override home rule, it has to be a "general law of the state". Previously, there was a three-prong test to see if the law met the requirements. Columbus is claiming a 2017 OSC decision changed this and hence they get to challenge ORC 9.68 because of that change.

I don't know what weight this carries, but ORC 9.68 is a part of Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 9, General Provisions.
Sound like "general law" to me.
But I've never been to college

Today on NPR radio, All Sides With Ann Fisher did an hour on Home Rule.
They allowed an OFCC rep on during the final fifteen minutes to present our side of the issue.

https://www.npr.org/podcasts/381443470/ ... ann-fisher" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the episode in question.
The 34:35 mark is OFCCs moment. (check out the completely unanswered 39:30 mark!)
WELL played despite adversarial host & guest tandem wanting to tackle zoning laws.