Gun Rights: City of Cleveland v. State

The Eight District Court of Appeals of Ohio has upheld the City of Cleveland's challenge to Ohio's statute, RC 9.68, preempting city gun laws. in Ohio, cities have broad authority to enact laws to regulate themselves, called "home rule." City ordinances, however, do not control over the "general law" enacted by the Ohio General Assembly. Over the years, there has been a great deal of litigation over what constitutes a general law. In 2006, he General Assembly, in support of its concealed carry and other pro-gun legislation, and acted RC 9.68 that specifically provided that the state gun laws would preempt all locally enacted laws.

In Ohioans for Concealed Carry Inc. v. City of Clyde, 120 Ohio St. 3d 96, 2008-Ohio-4605, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down city of Clyde ordinance that band licensed handgun owners from carrying concealed handguns in Clyde city parks. He Ohio Supreme Court held that the statewide gun law was a general law that prescribed a code of conduct for citizens carrying concealed guns which conflicted with the city of Clyde's ordnance.

During the time that the Clyde case was on appeal, in 2006, the Ohio General Assembly enacted RC 9.68 specifically preempting city ordinances with the statewide gun laws.

In City of Cleveland v. State, the city of Cleveland brought a declaratory judgment action seeking to declare RC 9.68 unconstitutional, because it was not a general law that could preempt city ordinances. No specific city gun law was at issue. The Eighth District Court of Appeals on November 12, 2009 held that RC 9.68 was not "part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment." Furthermore, the Court held that RC 9.68 did not "set for police, sanitary, or similar regulations rather than simply granting or limiting legislative power."

Expect this case to be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Notwithstanding the eventual result in the Ohio Supreme Court, this case does not uphold or strike down any particular Cleveland gun regulation. that conflicts with Ohio's concealed carry law and the various support of laws (Castle doctrine and the like) would likely be struck down on the basis of the City of Clyde case. There is currently pending a suit by the Buckeye Firearms Foundation to strike down various Cleveland anti-gun city ordinances (copy of the complaint here). The Buckeye Firearms Foundation filed the case February 4, 2009, and the latest court docket entry was in July 2009, when the Ohio Attorney General made an appearance in the case.

The decision is a disappointment for gun owners in and around the City of Cleveland. We can expect the City of Cleveland to tout that the decision means a lot more than it actually does.