Injunction against House Bill 228
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
- WY_Not
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 2435
- Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
- Location: Miami County, OH
- Contact:
Injunction against House Bill 228
Part of an Ohio self-defense gun law is blocked.
Looks like Columbus is going after preemption.
https://www.wdtn.com/news/an-ohio-self- ... mporarily/
Looks like Columbus is going after preemption.
https://www.wdtn.com/news/an-ohio-self- ... mporarily/
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.
Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
- FormerNavy
- Posts: 2343
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
- Location: Southwest Ohio
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
WY_Not wrote:Part of an Ohio self-defense gun law is blocked.
Looks like Columbus is going after preemption.
https://www.wdtn.com/news/an-ohio-self- ... mporarily/
I'm a little confused... I thought preemption had been well settled at this point in the OSC?
- JustaShooter
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5805
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
- Location: Akron/Canton Area
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
It has - which is why I wonder just what is going on. None of the articles I've found give enough details to know exactly what has been blocked (and, blocked *three years* after it took effect...)FormerNavy wrote:I'm a little confused... I thought preemption had been well settled at this point in the OSC?WY_Not wrote:Part of an Ohio self-defense gun law is blocked.
Looks like Columbus is going after preemption.
https://www.wdtn.com/news/an-ohio-self- ... mporarily/
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
-
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 1253
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:16 pm
- Location: Central Ohio
- FormerNavy
- Posts: 2343
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
- Location: Southwest Ohio
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
I wonder if they are hoping to get back in front of a more favorable OSC that may overturn the prior 9.68 decisions?
-
- OFCC Member
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
- Location: NW Ohio
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
Not quite so fast...
FWIW / FYI latest email from BFA says bunk...
''Regardless of Ruling, Ohio Cities CANNOT Regulate Firearms
Dear Friend,
You probably have seen a story in the news recently that Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Steven McIntosh sided with Columbus in a recent ruling that deals in part with Ohio's "preemption" laws and HB 228.
Unfortunately, the City of Columbus and recent media reports are misleading the public about what this ruling means.
Our reading of this ruling is that it is narrowly focused on the issue of municipal zoning for firearm manufacturers. It is NOT a green light for Columbus or other cities to pass gun control laws.
The ruling says this:
The Court agrees that R.C. 9.68 unconstitutionally infringes upon the Plaintiff’s right to exercise its zoning powers. Paragraph (D) specifically permits municipalities to regulate the sale (emphasis added) of firearms, firearm components or ammunition for firearms in areas zoned for residential or agricultural uses. It does not specifically grant municipalities zoning to limit gun manufacturing in areas zoned residential and agricultural.
This deals with firearms manufacturers setting up shop in a residential neighborhood only. The ruling in no way negates Ohio Revised Code 9.68 or preemption in general. Ohio cities do not have the legal ability to regulate firearms, firearm components, ammunition, or knives.
City Attorney Zach Klein is being irresponsible when he says otherwise.
He was recently quoted in a news story, saying "An assault weapon ban is something that the city of Columbus can now consider and I would support that."
But this ruling does not simply wipe away preemption and he knows that.
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled specifically that Ohio's preemption statute is valid law and a lower court judge cannot simply sweep that away. There may be a case concerning the narrow issue of whether cities can zone to prevent firearm manufacturers from locating in residential neighborhoods, but that is all.
Once again, Columbus is playing politics with settled law and misleading the public about their authority on gun regulation.
Columbus and other cities must continue to abide by state law.
Any city that attempts to ignore Ohio's preemption law will be challenged in court. We will not sit by idly and watch Ohio devolve into a patchwork of conflicting gun laws as we had two decades ago.
Moreover, Columbus reported on a study of violent crime not long ago showing that authorities know where the violence is coming from. So, city leaders should focus their energies on the actual perpetrators of violent crime and not continue to harass law-abiding gun owners who are not responsible for that crime.
Buckeye Firearms Association will continue to monitor the situation and report to you about the ongoing court case between Columbus and the State of Ohio, as well as Columbus' outrageous actions.
Two things you can do to help:
First, be sure to vote for our endorsed candidates on Tuesday, Nov. 8, if you have not already cast your ballot. See our grades and endorsements here.
And most importantly, vote for Supreme Court Justices Sharon Kennedy, Pat DeWine, Pat Fischer. This is the court of last resort and we need a win in all three races in order to protect your Second Amendment rights here in Ohio.
Second, if you're not a paid member, please JOIN NOW. Or make a generous donation.
If the time comes when we need to launch yet another lawsuit against Columbus or any other city, we will need significant financial support. Lawsuits are incredibly expensive, but they are often the only remedy to push back against unruly cities looking to blame you for their crime problems.
Thank you for supporting BFA. We're in this together. If you will do your part to support us, we'll continue to fight tirelessly for your right to keep and bear arms.
Yours for Liberty
Dean Rieck
Executive Director''
FWIW / FYI latest email from BFA says bunk...
''Regardless of Ruling, Ohio Cities CANNOT Regulate Firearms
Dear Friend,
You probably have seen a story in the news recently that Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Steven McIntosh sided with Columbus in a recent ruling that deals in part with Ohio's "preemption" laws and HB 228.
Unfortunately, the City of Columbus and recent media reports are misleading the public about what this ruling means.
Our reading of this ruling is that it is narrowly focused on the issue of municipal zoning for firearm manufacturers. It is NOT a green light for Columbus or other cities to pass gun control laws.
The ruling says this:
The Court agrees that R.C. 9.68 unconstitutionally infringes upon the Plaintiff’s right to exercise its zoning powers. Paragraph (D) specifically permits municipalities to regulate the sale (emphasis added) of firearms, firearm components or ammunition for firearms in areas zoned for residential or agricultural uses. It does not specifically grant municipalities zoning to limit gun manufacturing in areas zoned residential and agricultural.
This deals with firearms manufacturers setting up shop in a residential neighborhood only. The ruling in no way negates Ohio Revised Code 9.68 or preemption in general. Ohio cities do not have the legal ability to regulate firearms, firearm components, ammunition, or knives.
City Attorney Zach Klein is being irresponsible when he says otherwise.
He was recently quoted in a news story, saying "An assault weapon ban is something that the city of Columbus can now consider and I would support that."
But this ruling does not simply wipe away preemption and he knows that.
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled specifically that Ohio's preemption statute is valid law and a lower court judge cannot simply sweep that away. There may be a case concerning the narrow issue of whether cities can zone to prevent firearm manufacturers from locating in residential neighborhoods, but that is all.
Once again, Columbus is playing politics with settled law and misleading the public about their authority on gun regulation.
Columbus and other cities must continue to abide by state law.
Any city that attempts to ignore Ohio's preemption law will be challenged in court. We will not sit by idly and watch Ohio devolve into a patchwork of conflicting gun laws as we had two decades ago.
Moreover, Columbus reported on a study of violent crime not long ago showing that authorities know where the violence is coming from. So, city leaders should focus their energies on the actual perpetrators of violent crime and not continue to harass law-abiding gun owners who are not responsible for that crime.
Buckeye Firearms Association will continue to monitor the situation and report to you about the ongoing court case between Columbus and the State of Ohio, as well as Columbus' outrageous actions.
Two things you can do to help:
First, be sure to vote for our endorsed candidates on Tuesday, Nov. 8, if you have not already cast your ballot. See our grades and endorsements here.
And most importantly, vote for Supreme Court Justices Sharon Kennedy, Pat DeWine, Pat Fischer. This is the court of last resort and we need a win in all three races in order to protect your Second Amendment rights here in Ohio.
Second, if you're not a paid member, please JOIN NOW. Or make a generous donation.
If the time comes when we need to launch yet another lawsuit against Columbus or any other city, we will need significant financial support. Lawsuits are incredibly expensive, but they are often the only remedy to push back against unruly cities looking to blame you for their crime problems.
Thank you for supporting BFA. We're in this together. If you will do your part to support us, we'll continue to fight tirelessly for your right to keep and bear arms.
Yours for Liberty
Dean Rieck
Executive Director''
Acquisitions thus far:
-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)
Yeah, I'm that good
-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)
Yeah, I'm that good
-
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 1253
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:16 pm
- Location: Central Ohio
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
Dave Yost was on LEPD's show on 610 yesterday. He was asked about this. What he said did not exactly jive with BFA's take. You can hear what Yost said on Facebook. Start at 33:10.
https://www.facebook.com/LEPDFirearmsOn ... 4746938403
https://www.facebook.com/LEPDFirearmsOn ... 4746938403
- JustaShooter
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5805
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
- Location: Akron/Canton Area
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
I didn't hear anything that disagreed with BFA's take. At 33:59 Yost said "the city of Columbus is challenging provisions of a state law", so not the entirety of 9.68, just provisions of it, which is what BFA said - BFA just gave more detail about *which* provisions they are challenging.kcclark wrote:Dave Yost was on LEPD's show on 610 yesterday. He was asked about this. What he said did not exactly jive with BFA's take. You can hear what Yost said on Facebook. Start at 33:10.
https://www.facebook.com/LEPDFirearmsOn ... 4746938403
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
-
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
- Location: South of I-70
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
Haven't posted in quite a while. But with that said, I'm at a loss to understand the courts opinion. I read the State's two motions to dismiss, Civil Rule 12(b)(6), Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Both those motions makes clear that R.C. 9.68 does not effect the cities home rule authority to prohibit manufacturing (of any type) in a "limited rural residential district." In effect, the city filed a lawsuit looking for a controversy where none exists.
Now, if the city specifically disallowed firearms and/or their components to be manufactured within the city limits then there would be a controversy. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365, 387 - Supreme Court (1926)
“But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted, not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances, which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution, of course, must fall.”
I would think the state will appeal.
Now, if the city specifically disallowed firearms and/or their components to be manufactured within the city limits then there would be a controversy. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365, 387 - Supreme Court (1926)
“But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted, not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances, which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution, of course, must fall.”
I would think the state will appeal.
-
- Posts: 4791
- Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
- Location: Western Ohio
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
I'd like to know what the city thinks "manufacturing" means. Is it manufacturing for commercial sale, or are they going to harass law abiding gun owners who, for example, may want to build their own firearm, either from a parts kit or from a 3d printer.
- FormerNavy
- Posts: 2343
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:19 pm
- Location: Southwest Ohio
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
I would assume this is their way of getting to the "ghost gun" problem as they see it.... I would fully expect them to completely outlaw all manufacture by anyone in the city....M-Quigley wrote:I'd like to know what the city thinks "manufacturing" means. Is it manufacturing for commercial sale, or are they going to harass law abiding gun owners who, for example, may want to build their own firearm, either from a parts kit or from a 3d printer.
- Klingon00
- Posts: 3825
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:47 am
- Location: Columbus, OH
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
The problem I have here is that ORC 9.68 doesn't give a carve out for municipalities regulating manufacturers, manufacturing, and keeping gun parts as far as I can tell. Am I missing something?FormerNavy wrote: I would assume this is their way of getting to the "ghost gun" problem as they see it.... I would fully expect them to completely outlaw all manufacture by anyone in the city....
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-9.68" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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, including by any ordinance, rule, regulation, resolution, practice, or other action or any threat of citation, prosecution, or other legal process, may own, possess, purchase, acquire, transport, store, carry, sell, transfer, manufacture, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition, and any knife. Any such further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process interferes with the fundamental individual right described in this division and unduly inhibits law-abiding people from protecting themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers and from other legitimate uses of constitutionally protected arms, including hunting and sporting activities, and the state by this section preempts, supersedes, and declares null and void any such further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process.
- JustaShooter
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5805
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
- Location: Akron/Canton Area
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
No, it doesn't - but they contend that Ohio's Constitutional Home Rule provision prohibits this new restriction on their ability to regulate manufacture of firearms. In previous challenges to ORC 9.68, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that 9.68 is a "general law" and overrides Home Rule.Klingon00 wrote:The problem I have here is that ORC 9.68 doesn't give a carve out for municipalities regulating manufacturers, manufacturing, and keeping gun parts as far as I can tell. Am I missing something?FormerNavy wrote: I would assume this is their way of getting to the "ghost gun" problem as they see it.... I would fully expect them to completely outlaw all manufacture by anyone in the city....
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-9.68" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;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, including by any ordinance, rule, regulation, resolution, practice, or other action or any threat of citation, prosecution, or other legal process, may own, possess, purchase, acquire, transport, store, carry, sell, transfer, manufacture, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition, and any knife. Any such further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process interferes with the fundamental individual right described in this division and unduly inhibits law-abiding people from protecting themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers and from other legitimate uses of constitutionally protected arms, including hunting and sporting activities, and the state by this section preempts, supersedes, and declares null and void any such further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process.
However, this new provision seems a bit shaky to me, as the entire point of 9.68 has historically been to prevent a patchwork of laws that the individual firearm owner could easily run afoul of. Note that 9.68 specifically calls out that it is intended to prevent "interfer[ing] with the fundamental individual right" and keep political subdivisions from "unduly inhibit[ing] law-abiding people from protecting themselves".
Extending this to a business entity which as a matter of course would naturally research and be aware of any laws regulating their enterprise seems very different than the rest of the law and I believe that makes it vulnerable to this challenge. Frankly, I found this addition curious, and wondered at the reason why it was included in the first place. Has this been an issue for firearms manufacturers in Ohio?
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor
Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
-
- OFCC Patron Member
- Posts: 1253
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:16 pm
- Location: Central Ohio
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
https://www.10tv.com/article/news/local ... 83644d1f6aLast week, a Franklin County Commons Pleas judge ruled that local municipality should trump state law, giving Columbus the green light to look at ways to curb gun violence.
City attorney Zach Klein said an assault weapons ban and mandatory gun safety locks are two measures that could be considered.
-
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:32 pm
- Location: South of I-70
Re: Injunction against House Bill 228
You have to parties talking past each other and a judge that is clueless.
The city claims that RC 9.68 regulates manufacturing, in a commercial sense.
The state says it doesn’t. But the state didn’t explain it very well.
RC 9.68 does NOT regulate commercial manufacturing. RC 9.68 refers to “Individual” and “People.” Both are considered a “natural person”, not a “person”. See RC 1.59(C) "Person" includes an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and association. Now look at RC 1.02(A) "Whoever" includes all persons, natural and artificial; partners; principals, agents, and employees; and all officials, public or private. In effect, a “person” is not a “people.” See Buckeye Community Hope Found. v. City of Cuyahoga Falls, 82 Ohio St. 3d 539 - Ohio: Supreme Court 1998.
Definition, definition, definition.
So, the term “manufacture” in RC 9.68 refers to an “individual” or “people”, those natural persons, that choose to manufacture (verb), for their personal use, firearms and their accessories (even ghost guns). RC 9.68 is not referring to those persons in the business of manufacturing firearms.
The judge stated in his decision:
“ince 9.68 provides a specific exception for firearms but not manufacturing a municipality which promulgated legislation which prohibited manufacturing could be subject to litigation by a person, group or entity adversely affected by the zoning ordinance and could spend significant resources defending such a suit even if successful. The Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm because of the ambiguity in the statute that does not specifically exclude zoning for manufacturing.”
The judge ignored RC 1.42, Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.
And the judge also ignored RC 1.47, In enacting a statute, it is presumed that:
(A) Compliance with the constitutions of the state and of the United States is intended;
(B) The entire statute is intended to be effective;
(C) A just and reasonable result is intended;
(D) A result feasible of execution is intended.
I hope the State appeals.
The city claims that RC 9.68 regulates manufacturing, in a commercial sense.
The state says it doesn’t. But the state didn’t explain it very well.
RC 9.68 does NOT regulate commercial manufacturing. RC 9.68 refers to “Individual” and “People.” Both are considered a “natural person”, not a “person”. See RC 1.59(C) "Person" includes an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and association. Now look at RC 1.02(A) "Whoever" includes all persons, natural and artificial; partners; principals, agents, and employees; and all officials, public or private. In effect, a “person” is not a “people.” See Buckeye Community Hope Found. v. City of Cuyahoga Falls, 82 Ohio St. 3d 539 - Ohio: Supreme Court 1998.
Definition, definition, definition.
So, the term “manufacture” in RC 9.68 refers to an “individual” or “people”, those natural persons, that choose to manufacture (verb), for their personal use, firearms and their accessories (even ghost guns). RC 9.68 is not referring to those persons in the business of manufacturing firearms.
The judge stated in his decision:
“
The judge ignored RC 1.42, Words and phrases shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. Words and phrases that have acquired a technical or particular meaning, whether by legislative definition or otherwise, shall be construed accordingly.
And the judge also ignored RC 1.47, In enacting a statute, it is presumed that:
(A) Compliance with the constitutions of the state and of the United States is intended;
(B) The entire statute is intended to be effective;
(C) A just and reasonable result is intended;
(D) A result feasible of execution is intended.
I hope the State appeals.