Cleveland has adopted a new gun control ordinance that was immediately challenged with a lawsuit.
By Dave Workman
Senior Editor
Less than a day after the Cleveland, Ohio city council passed a gun control law that one member admitted was “not designed to stop gun violence,” but only reflect the “council’s values,” the city was sued by Ohioans for Concealed Carry and one of its individual members who resides in the city.
The lawsuit suggests that the new ordinance may violate state law that brought uniformity to Ohio gun laws.
In a press release announcing the lawsuit, OFCC asserted, “In 2007 The Ohio Legislature adopted Ohio Revised Code 9.68, a statewide comprehensive approach to uniformly standardizing firearms laws across the state of Ohio. One year later the Ohio Supreme Court decided in Ohioans For Concealed Carry v. City of Clyde that the statute was a general law and prevailed in a home rule challenge.”
In 2010, the organization recalled, Cleveland challenged R.C. 9.68 again in Cleveland v. State and the court again upheld the law stating, “R.C. 9.68 is a general law that displaced municipal firearm ordinances and does not unconstitutionally infringe on municipal home rule authority.”
Now, five years later, the city is at it again.
According to WRGT, the local Fox affiliate, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that state gun law supersedes local ordinances, and even the local press expected a court challenge, and about 12 hours after the ordinance was adopted, their expectations were satisfied.
But the chain of events underscores the problem with gun control advocacy especially at the local or even state level. Under the new ordinance, private firearm sales must be reported to the police. Gun owners must report lost or stolen firearms. The brandishing of a “facsimile” firearm is prohibited, as is the “negligent transfer of a firearm to a felon or intoxicated person.”
The new law also creates a “gun offender registry” that keeps track of people convicted of gun-related crimes. They must register with the city’s safety director, the news agency reported. This is the section that many Ohio gun rights activists consider the most offensive.
That feeling of frustration was reinforced when Cleveland.com reported that Council President Kevin Kelley acknowledged that the legislation is not about stopping “gun violence.” Instead, he described it as “good public policy intended to encourage responsible gun ownership.”
His colleague, Councilman Michael Polensek, was quoted stating, “So we pass this legislation tonight, but what does it really mean? I think there are going to be some people who think that as a result of this passage, things will dramatically change in this city. And they are not, because the bad guys are not turning in their guns. The bad guys are not registering. The kids who want to shoot indiscriminately on the street won’t stop.”
Only one council member voted against the new ordinance. Councilman Zack Reed argued that “the legislation is powerless to address gun violence in the city.”
By no small coincidence, the council action came on the heels of the Pew Research report that found public support has dramatically shifted in favor of gun rights, and away from gun control.
