Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: If city won't repeal bad law, will a 'note' in the law work?

  1. #1
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028

    If city won't repeal bad law, will a 'note' in the law work?

    There is a suburb of Columbus that has a bad law or three on the books. They violate R.C. 9.68.

    After bringing this up to council, the law director contacted me and said that council did not want to repeal any of the laws, but were willing to publish a note at the end of each ordinance that reads to this effect:

    "To the extent that this ordinance is in violation of ORC 9.68, it is null and void."

    The laws 1) restrict display of firearms in showcases or windows, 2) require permits for sale and purchase of firearms, and 3) restrict carry of firearms in parks.


    So, IS modifying each of these ordinances with the above notation sufficient to not be in violation of 9.68?
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cincy area, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    885
    Yikes I hate to play this same tune on the jukebox again, but...ORC 9.68 needs some enforcement 'teeth'. As in 'throw the mayor/council/law director in jail for refusing to comply' type teeth.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    201
    That "null and void" only makes sure that someone can still be arrested, and a vindictive prosecutor could even run a charge through the courts waiting for a "not-guilty"... thereby still costing an arestee money and time... I agree with Brian D.... 9.68 needs some teeth to get these local yokels interested in getting the laws/ordinances/regulations off the books.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    If they voted on it then I think it would estoppel the enforcement. Of course, this would be an affirmative defense.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802

    If city won't repeal bad law, will a 'note' in the law work?

    Is there any portion of that ordinance that is not in violation of 9.68?

    If not, this is clearly (as others have pointed out) an attempt to allow arrests and prosecutions under the ordinance, even in the full knowledge that the rap will eventually be beaten, but only after the citizen has been punished sufficiently for contempt of city council.

    I suggest one of our legal professionals (not the poster above who fancies himself a legal expert, using fancy legal terms like "estoppel") writing a letter to the council informing them of any consequences to the city if their officers enforce an illegal ordinance that they knowingly left on the books. I hope that such consequences exist. I fear that they do not.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
    Last edited by eye95; 07-01-2013 at 12:36 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802

    If city won't repeal bad law, will a 'note' in the law work?

    BTW, estoppel is a noun, not a verb, as it was misused above.

    color of law or Werz: Could either of you expound on how the legal concept of estoppel would apply in this case, if at all? I freely admit that my knowledge of the term is limited to hearing it used on Law & Order. A truly wise person is not ignorant of his ignorance.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  7. #7
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028
    #1 restricts weapons in windows, so only the firearms part is in violation.

    #2 & #3 are specific to firearms.
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    You may have meant estop rather than estoppel. It means to use estoppel as a means to an end, as a tool.
    http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...4/civ00209.htm

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWifeSaidYes View Post
    #1 restricts weapons in windows, so only the firearms part is in violation.

    #2 & #3 are specific to firearms.
    So then, part of the law is not in violation of 9.68. Someone in that city needs to demand that the police are trained in which parts of the law are "null and void," otherwise the city is encouraging officers to make mistakes to the legal detriment of the People in the city. Shame on them. They have been advised of the problem. They need to make a good-faith effort to get the law within the constraints of 9.68 and not rely on the police or the citizens to figure out what applies and what does not.

  10. #10
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028
    I may have to go for a walk in the park this afternoon.

    I wonder which city I should choose...decisions, decisions.

    Hmm, better check my voice recorder batteries...
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802
    Do you really think that link is a response to your being called on your ignorant usage of the word estoppel? Read the first sentence. It shows the proper form of the word to be used as a verb. Your ignorance on the proper usage of this word as varying parts of speech make it reasonable to suspect your ignorance on the subject matter.

    I look forward to real experts in the law discussing whether and how the concept of estoppel applies in the case of this bad law.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWifeSaidYes View Post
    ...Hmm, better check my voice recorder batteries...
    Only if you are going to a laundromat. Sorry, Kuz, hadda do it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028
    I set it up, you just spiked it!
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Do you really think that link is a response to your being called on your ignorant usage of the word estoppel? Read the first sentence. It shows the proper form of the word to be used as a verb. Your ignorance on the proper usage of this word as varying parts of speech make it reasonable to suspect your ignorance on the subject matter.

    I look forward to real experts in the law discussing whether and how the concept of estoppel applies in the case of this bad law.
    That aint you obviously...arguing the non-argument. Good job.

  15. #15
    Regular Member half_life1052's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    269

    Ianal

    But I do read Groklaw ;-) I believe what he was trying to say was that by acknowledging that the ordinances are in violation that they would be estopped (meaning precluded in this case) from claiming any kind of immunity.

    Will that save you the ride downtown? -- No
    Will it cause the prosecutor to nolle it ? -- Probably not, in for a penny . . .
    Will it help later when the victim is shooting for damages? -- I should hope so but you will have to ask your lawyer

    One might wonder if they were to do that, and a skilled lawyer was able to peel back the veil, could criminal charges be pursued against counsel/police/prosecutor ?

    I am probably way off base legally speaking but throwing my thinking out there sometimes results in a much appreciated education.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802
    Quote Originally Posted by half_life1052 View Post
    But I do read Groklaw ;-) I believe what he was trying to say was that by acknowledging that the ordinances are in violation that they would be estopped (meaning precluded in this case) from claiming any kind of immunity.

    Will that save you the ride downtown? -- No
    Will it cause the prosecutor to nolle it ? -- Probably not, in for a penny . . .
    Will it help later when the victim is shooting for damages? -- I should hope so but you will have to ask your lawyer

    One might wonder if they were to do that, and a skilled lawyer was able to peel back the veil, could criminal charges be pursued against counsel/police/prosecutor ?

    I am probably way off base legally speaking but throwing my thinking out there sometimes results in a much appreciated education.
    Actually, he wasn't talking immunity at all. He was just blindly repeating a legal word he heard that I suspect he thought was just a fancy to say "stopped."

    Read some of his other stuff. You'll realize the he constantly talks through his hat and can't support a single legal contention he makes.

    I would rather hear from color of law or Werz regarding whether or not immunity for the city would be pierced. I suspect not, but I will admit ignorance of the law in this regard--something that other poster foolishly never does.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Actually, he wasn't talking immunity at all. He was just blindly repeating a legal word he heard that I suspect he thought was just a fancy to say "stopped."

    Read some of his other stuff. You'll realize the he constantly talks through his hat and can't support a single legal contention he makes.

    I would rather hear from color of law or Werz regarding whether or not immunity for the city would be pierced. I suspect not, but I will admit ignorance of the law in this regard--something that other poster foolishly never does.
    Ha, eye is funny ... usually wrong, but funny

    OMG you don't "pierce" the immunity .... you pierce a corporate veil ... that's a different animal ...

    I could attack all of eye's posts if I want to ... not the brightest bulb in the box. And I have won cases against guberment officials in their personal capacity .. all by my lonesome pro se self w/o help from eye.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    12,802
    Folks, don't take my word for it. Just Google "pierce immunity" lawsuit and see what comes up. The phrase is routinely used in the fashion I used it.

    That poster is pathetic.

    I'll just wait for the folks who know the law to chime in. This thing ain't worth the effort.

  19. #19
    Regular Member half_life1052's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    269

    Ianal

    Poking around I begin to see that maybe my last thoughts were more of a pipe dream. Connick V Thompson gives me some clues as to how it would turn out. Essentially you would have to prove a pattern of abuse.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    16,172
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Folks, don't take my word for it. Just Google "pierce immunity" lawsuit and see what comes up. The phrase is routinely used in the fashion I used it.

    That poster is pathetic.

    I'll just wait for the folks who know the law to chime in. This thing ain't worth the effort.
    That's right, move along monkey boy...

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    2,495
    Quote Originally Posted by half_life1052 View Post
    But I do read Groklaw ;-) I believe what he was trying to say was that by acknowledging that the ordinances are in violation that they would be estopped (meaning precluded in this case) from claiming any kind of immunity.

    Will that save you the ride downtown? -- No
    Will it cause the prosecutor to nolle it ? -- Probably not, in for a penny . . .
    Will it help later when the victim is shooting for damages? -- I should hope so but you will have to ask your lawyer

    One might wonder if they were to do that, and a skilled lawyer was able to peel back the veil, could criminal charges be pursued against counsel/police/prosecutor ?

    I am probably way off base legally speaking but throwing my thinking out there sometimes results in a much appreciated education.
    Bring criminal charges against the Counsel,police,prosecutor would be a tough sell however filing a civil complaint for Malicious Prosecution could possibly be achieved.
    For any Constitutional rights violations seek redress under U.S.C.A. 42 section 1983.

    Best regards.

    CCJ

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Springfield, MO
    Posts
    201
    Eye and MWSY, may the fleas of 1000 camels infest your nether regions... ;-)

    IANAL, so I'll just stick to plain english... or the King's English... which was Francais when that line was in vogue

  23. #23
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028
    As long as the fleas bring fresh batteries with them.

    Any more input on the original topic of this thread?
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

  24. #24
    Regular Member half_life1052's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWifeSaidYes View Post
    As long as the fleas bring fresh batteries with them.

    Any more input on the original topic of this thread?
    The fleas must have gotten bigger since I left home. I would think that weasel wording at the end of a statute would not stand up to a legal test.

    Essentially saying "all of this stuff is illegal" in big print while putting in small print "except we aren't allowed to regulate it" smacks of an attempt to coerce.

    BTW --- side note: I am coming home for a few weeks to visit. How are the police around Canal Fulton?

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,528
    Placing the term “null and void” at the end of a law to naturalize it would more than likely not survive judicial review. Why, because cities usually have a “City Charter.” Those Charters spell out the specific legal steps or process required to enact Ordinances and Resolutions, as well as abolishing what was enacted.

    A City Charter would better be described as a city's constitution.

    Example: sections of a city charter would be worded something to effect as follows.

    Section X -
    Each proposed ordinance or resolution shall be introduced in written or printed form and shall be read by title only, provided Council may require any reading to be in full by a majority vote of its members then in office. Each ordinance or resolution shall be passed, except as otherwise required by law, by a vote of at least a majority of the members of Council then in office, excluding abstentions. The vote on the passage of each ordinance or resolution shall be taken by yeas and nays and entered in the minutes. An ordinance or resolution shall be read on three different days, provided that Council may dispense with the requirement by a vote of at least three-fourths of its members then in office, excluding abstentions. At the meeting at which a vote of Council shall be taken on any ordinance or resolution, Council shall provide an opportunity for public comment thereon before the vote is called. The Mayor shall have the veto power over ordinances and resolutions subject to limitations and provisions of the statutes of the State of Ohio relating to such powers. Actions by Council, not required by law to be by ordinance or resolution, including, without limitation, procedural matters and elections among and appointments made or confirmed by Council, may be taken by motion on a voice vote approved by at least a majority of the members of Council present at a duly called meeting at which a quorum is present. Council shall by ordinance provide for the publication of the subject matter of all introduced and enacted legislation, provided that the failure to publish such information shall not invalidate any action of Council.

    Section XX -
    All ordinances and resolutions in force at the time the foregoing provisions of this Charter take effect, not inconsistent therewith, shall continue in force until amended or repealed.
    In other words, an ordinance has to be enacted to repeal an existing ordinance. The wording of the ordinance does not stay on the books once repealed.

    Of course I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on gun forums.
    Last edited by color of law; 07-03-2013 at 12:24 PM. Reason: tense of word

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •