Columbus ban hi cap mags

[Brian D.]

I haven't read it but according to the LEPD radio show on 610am, the shows host claim the city said it does. I thought there was a federal law though that if someone is driving on a highway and is just passing through an area they are legal. It's the same law NJ allegedly ignores every chance they get. That law might only apply to interstate highways though.

Bearable quoted the applicable federal law quite accurately. But as you said, NJ has frequently ignored it. I suppose that they've been sued a few times, perhaps with some success. But really, there are places it's just best for gun owners to avoid whenever possible.

[Chuck]

I know of an attorney right now who is looking for a female plaintiff to sue the city with.
He said that a landlocked suburbanite who is entirely surrounded by Columbus will do as well.
If you or someone you know is interested, please PM me.

(So much for my "retirement)

[machinegunkelly]

Chuck
Thanks Again !
MGK

[JustaShooter]

I haven't read it but according to the LEPD radio show on 610am, the shows host claim the city said it does. I thought there was a federal law though that if someone is driving on a highway and is just passing through an area they are legal. It's the same law NJ allegedly ignores every chance they get. That law might only apply to interstate highways though.

Bearable quoted the applicable federal law quite accurately. But as you said, NJ has frequently ignored it. I suppose that they've been sued a few times, perhaps with some success. But really, there are places it's just best for gun owners to avoid whenever possible.

Accurately quoted, yes, but note the requirements for transport - and also note the protection covers "firearms", not ammunition feeding devices. Finally, the protection is as I understand it an "affirmative defense" meaning they can arrest you, charge you, take you to court, whereupon you must admit you broke their law *but* were covered under FOPA - and then, prove it.

(As always, anyone who knows differently, feel free to correct any misstatements I've made.)

[Brian D.]

I know of an attorney right now who is looking for a female plaintiff to sue the city with.
He said that a landlocked suburbanite who is entirely surrounded by Columbus will do as well.
If you or someone you know is interested, please PM me.

(So much for my "retirement)

This could get interesting. Long time ago Cincinnati passed an "assault weapons" ban. They stated it applied to people driving through as well as residents. Back then I worked for a municipal fire department that was mostly surrounded by Cincinnati. The job required me to live there. A trip to any range involved passing through Cincy, short of using a helicopter.

I was friends with a VERY pro 2nd Amendment Cincinnati PD Lieutenant who thought my situation might make a great test case for that ban. Might have tried it out, but neither of us or my shooting friends knew a gun rights attorney good enough to take it on.

[M-Quigley]

I haven't read it but according to the LEPD radio show on 610am, the shows host claim the city said it does. I thought there was a federal law though that if someone is driving on a highway and is just passing through an area they are legal. It's the same law NJ allegedly ignores every chance they get. That law might only apply to interstate highways though.

Bearable quoted the applicable federal law quite accurately. But as you said, NJ has frequently ignored it. I suppose that they've been sued a few times, perhaps with some success. But really, there are places it's just best for gun owners to avoid whenever possible.

Accurately quoted, yes, but note the requirements for transport - and also note the protection covers "firearms", not ammunition feeding devices.

I wonder if Columbus is trying to make that argument as well, that preemption doesn't apply because it's not a firearm? I tried to do a google search and couldn't find it, but I recall hearing about a case where some city tried to ban so called high capacity magazines and claiming that preemption didn't apply to them. In court one of the things the judge said (or agreed with the opposing counsel) that it did apply because a magazine is needed for the firearm to function. I thought it was an Ohio case but it might've been in some other state with preemption. I don't have access to Lexis.

Finally, the protection is as I understand it an "affirmative defense" meaning they can arrest you, charge you, take you to court, whereupon you must admit you broke their law *but* were covered under FOPA - and then, prove it.

(As always, anyone who knows differently, feel free to correct any misstatements I've made.)

And that probably is their goal anyway. One lawyer on Youtube said he was told once by a detective who made a bad arrest and was going to lose in court, "Your client might beat the rap but he can't beat the ride."

[eugene]

I've brought up solutions to stop the Electeds from ruling with extreme authority to the determent of the law.

Speaking of the Electeds, does there alleged 'ban' apply to the passerby driving down highway?

I haven't read it but according to the LEPD radio show on 610am, the shows host claim the city said it does. I thought there was a federal law though that if someone is driving on a highway and is just passing through an area they are legal. It's the same law NJ allegedly ignores every chance they get. That law might only apply to interstate highways though.

I've read about MD ignoring the laws too. We used to drive over into Oakland and go up through Deep Creek but haven't in years now since my M&P has 12 round magazines.

[eugene]

I'm in Lewis Center but columbus tax district and it annoys me that my tax $ are being waster by a city who knowing breaks the law but will then waste more of my tax $ to fight it in court.

[FormerNavy]

First (as far as I know) lawsuit filed... https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/lawsuit ... uKMjnV6A-k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[pk47]

I'm in Lewis Center but columbus tax district and it annoys me that my tax $ are being waster by a city who knowing breaks the law but will then waste more of my tax $ to fight it in court.

Personally, if a city/town passes a law like that, I would like to see those who voted in favor become personally responsible for all legal fees if they lose in court. No tax monies used to defend it.

[WhyNot]

Welll.... TODAY IS DA DAY

Columbus EV/PC edition magazine ban is in effect so says our local newz way over here.

Waaaay over here, I can feel the extra safety that Col. residents, tax payers, visitors & yes even vagabonds are enjoying.

I'm sure there will be an immediate newz release if/when the 1st evil 30rder owner is caught.

[carmen fovozzo]

So how would they know it’s a 30 round mag if you only put 29 in it ?

[Brian D.]

Just for historical context, Cincinnati had a ban like this some years before Ohio Revised Code 9.68 existed. It was on their books for a decade or so. In all that time the police managed to make one arrest/firearms seizure. Long story, but the case was thrown out. The rifle and magazines were owned by a security guard who, as memory serves, lived in the city with his girlfriend, but he kept the gear at his parent's home to comply. His girlfriend got mad at him about something and turned him in to CPD. They got a judge to sign a search warrant FOR THE PARENT'S HOME, OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDICTION.

That was the beginning of the end of their "assault weapons ban", as you might imagine. It's almost like the cops were trying to torpedo the law themselves.

[Brian D.]

So how would they know it’s a 30 round mag if you only put 29 in it ?

Sometimes I can't tell if you're being serious. If it holds 29, a mag loader tool will allow at least one more round to be stuffed in.

[carmen fovozzo]

So how would they know it’s a 30 round mag if you only put 29 in it ?

Sometimes I can't tell if you're being serious. If it holds 29, a mag loader tool will allow at least one more round to be stuffed in.

What’s the logic behind this ? It’s the ammo not the mag..