9.68 equivalent for bows?

[Pecker]

So, I emailed a friend of mine in the Lakewood, OH PD asking what their opinion was on possibly shooting my bow in my backyard. I noted in the city ordinances that nothing explicitly prohibited the use of a bow in city limits.

They replied that a section did ban possession of bows and pointed me to the following section.

549.05 SALE, POSSESSION AND USE OF DANGEROUS TOYS.
(a) No person, firm or corporation shall, within the City, sell, offer for sale or have in his or its possession or custody any sling shot, bow and arrow, blow gun or other contrivance for throwing stones, pebbles, pellets, spears, arrows or other missiles. For the purpose of this section, possession of any of the foregoing in an organized and regularly established gallery or range shall be prima-facie lawful.

So, what I'm essentially reading is that a police officer has interpreted this ordinance essentially bans the possession of a bow and arrow in city limits.

Is there any state law that might supersede this nonsense?

[Cruiser]

Except for?

549.05 SALE, POSSESSION AND USE OF DANGEROUS TOYS.
(a) No person, firm or corporation shall, within the City, sell, offer for sale or have in his or its possession or custody any sling shot, bow and arrow, blow gun or other contrivance for throwing stones, pebbles, pellets, spears, arrows or other missiles. For the purpose of this section, possession of any of the foregoing in an organized and regularly established gallery or range shall be prima-facie lawful.

[Pecker]

Yes, but my house is not an "established gallery or range."

[BriKuz]

This is why 9.68 needs to be extended to ALL (or at least MOST) arms...

[Brian D.]

This is why 9.68 needs to be extended to ALL (or at least MOST) arms...

Same thing when it comes to what should be covered as allowable for carry licensees to have on their persons. (BriKuz you know that's not the ideal I'd really like us to achieve when all is said and done, but it would be going the proper direction anyhow.)