• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Cincinnati city council bans "bump stocks".

Brian D.

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
914
Location
Cincy area, Ohio, USA
Please allow me a little leeway in posting about this, since the ordinance involves long guns, although not in terms of carrying them. Basically, Ohio has statewide preemption of local gun laws, including those involving ammunition, parts, etc. I think Cincinnati is trying to do an end around by saying a bump stock is an "accessory", as opposed to a "part".

Also, I read what they proposed a week or so, but not what they passed this afternoon. But there's really no way it CAN'T be a violation of Ohio Revised Code 9.68, statewide preemption.

Just wanted to get the discussion started here.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,903
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Please allow me a little leeway in posting about this, since the ordinance involves long guns, although not in terms of carrying them. Basically, Ohio has statewide preemption of local gun laws, including those involving ammunition, parts, etc. I think Cincinnati is trying to do an end around by saying a bump stock is an "accessory", as opposed to a "part".

Also, I read what they proposed a week or so, but not what they passed this afternoon. But there's really no way it CAN'T be a violation of Ohio Revised Code 9.68, statewide preemption.

Just wanted to get the discussion started here.
Once an accessory is affixed to the firearm it becomes a component, a part of the whole.
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
Wow, it has been a long time since I saw that show! Had forgotten all about it.

Since B.S. bans are all about pretending one thing can be another, and thus solve an unrelated third problem, here's my recommended soundtrack for all bureaucrats and legislators who are composing and promoting them:

[video=youtube;JnbfuAcCqpY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnbfuAcCqpY[/video]
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,337
Location
Valhalla
Please allow me a little leeway in posting about this, since the ordinance involves long guns, although not in terms of carrying them. Basically, Ohio has statewide preemption of local gun laws, including those involving ammunition, parts, etc. I think Cincinnati is trying to do an end around by saying a bump stock is an "accessory", as opposed to a "part".

Also, I read what they proposed a week or so, but not what they passed this afternoon. But there's really no way it CAN'T be a violation of Ohio Revised Code 9.68, statewide preemption.

Just wanted to get the discussion started here.
A bit of thread drift here. Back on target please.
 
Top