Distinguished Council Members,
As a firearms instructor I attempt to keep current on firearm laws so I can help my students avoid the pitfalls of being on the wrong side of the law.
In the process of my research it has come to my attention that the City of Cincinnati is on the wrong side of Ohio firearm laws, not just once, but multiple times. Apparently, requests for corrective action have previously been made to the City Solicitor’s office, but have been dismissed with the assertion that such laws will not be enforced. Unfortunately, I have recent personal experience that says otherwise.
You have or will shortly be receiving a request from Ohioans for Concealed Carry regarding the repeal of various city ordinances, rules, regulations, signage, etc., related to firearms. I am formally adding my support to their request, and will be monitoring Cincinnati’s action or lack thereof.
The state law which is being violated is O.R.C. section 9.68, which states in part “The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. 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, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition”.
In other words, via O.R.C. 9.68, with regards to firearms, governmental entities other than the State are prohibited from enacting or continuing to enforce most laws, regulations, etc. of their own making. The Ohio Supreme Court has confirmed the constitutionality of 9.68 in the case of Ohioans for Concealed Carry v. Clyde. Like Cincinnati, some cities have attempted to claim they wouldn’t enforce the laws on their books, or otherwise ignored requests for repeal of same. Section 9.68 provides a provision for compensation for those forced to challenge such actions – “In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section”. Ohioans for Concealed Carry has won a settlement with the one city it has been forced to take to court – the city of Campbell, Ohio. Is Cincinnati going to be next?
It’s disingenuous to claim that laws on the books will not be enforced, and it seems like an unnecessary expenditure of scarce city funds to perpetuate preempted ordinances, rules, regulations, etc.
I don’t know who is responsible for what I consider to be “game playing” regarding the subject at hand, but I do know that requests for corrective action have been around since at least 2009. Though not about this matter, I’ve had conversations with Charles Rubenstein of the Solicitor’s office – he seemed like a smart and aware individual when it comes to the nuances of Ohio law. I’ve also spoken to the head of training for CPD, and with a number of officers on various firearm related topics. I didn’t sense a desire to play games on any of their parts – so I’m left with my question “Who is responsible for the game playing??”
I’m in the process of working on other Cincinnati firearm-related matters - how the above repeal request is handled will affect my speed and course of action with those matters. In the meanwhile, I ask you to use your collective authority and put a stop to the game playing.
Please let me know how you intend to proceed, and feel free to contact me if you have questions.
