Ohio court slaps gun control advocates

A recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court, slapping the hands of local governments trying to enforce restrictive anti-firearms ordinances, is the latest in a string of judicial decisions protecting our rights secured by the Second Amendment. 

Over the last few years at the national level, we have witnessed court rulings that have begun to restore the Second Amendment to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment did in fact protect the individual right to keep and bear arms; as opposed to the so-called “collective right” preferred by gun control advocates. And just last year in McDonald v. Chicago, the Court incorporated that right to the states. 

Now, the top court in Ohio has placed another roadblock in the path of gun control advocates; striking down local gun laws enacted by municipalities that are more restrictive than those enacted by the state legislature. The state law preempting restrictive local laws passed in 2006 in order to provide a common set of standards for gun ownership for all Ohioans. 

Undeterred by the plain language and clear intent of the state law, however, the City of Cleveland had enacted laws that required registration of handguns and banned so-called “assault rifles” – both restrictions not applicable at the state level. City leaders claimed that these onerous regulations were “right” for them and therefore trumped the state law. Ohio’s high court disagreed.  

The opinion, authored by Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, noted that if the state preemption law was not enforced, “law-abiding gun owners would face a confusing patchwork of licensing requirements, possession restrictions and criminal penalties as they travel from one jurisdiction to another.” In other words if you lived in the suburbs of Cleveland and had to travel into the city, despite protections you enjoy as a citizen of Ohio, these rights would be curtailed as you crossed the city limits. 

Hopefully, in other cities around the country where anti-firearms officials try to disarm the citizens by enacting and enforcing gun control laws more restrictive than elsewhere in the state, challenges will be mounted and will result in constitutionally-sound decisions such as this one in Ohio.

- by Bob Barr, The Barr Code

124 comments Add your comment

Leon

January 7th, 2011
7:03 am

Everyone who lives in a city should be required to have an assault rifle so that we a level playing field.
Make sure there are no penalties for providing guns to children, psychos, convicted felons, etc. too That is a constitutional right if they claim they are needed for a “well armed [state] miitia” is it not?

dawgfaninauburn

January 7th, 2011
7:21 am

What if

January 7th, 2011
7:38 am

A shotgun with a barrel-mounted light and #1 shot loads is FAR better for home defense against crazies, and one can’t make much use of anything but a concealed pistol on the street. An “assault rifle” is a pretty worthless weapon unless you’re really going to war against a gang. Registering guns ONLY lets you know who the law abiders are and is of little – probably NO – help in addressing violence. Gun laws only seem to limit the ability of honest folks to defend themselves – but I am awed that we have so many law abiding loons in these parts who seem to think they need a military arsenal to defend their garage. Someone once quipped “every bullet has a lawyer attached.” Practice lots; do NOT miss what you’re aiming at.

Gunluvr

January 7th, 2011
7:38 am

I think Leon is trying to be facetious but I can’t really tell because of his writing.

Sunshine

January 7th, 2011
7:42 am

I totally agree with Leon. Please make sure that everyone in the U.S. gets a gun and carry them openly because that’s “Their” constitutional right. When their kids are born, get that child registered immediately to carry a gun. Heaven forbids that this child constitutional rights are taken away.

Ray

January 7th, 2011
7:48 am

Yeah I think I’ll pass on little kids having guns my friend.

Don’t want a kid to shoot me just cause I said something to them. Plus I don’t want my kids coming home from daycare or school saying they shot someone cause they had cooties or something.

Gunluvr

January 7th, 2011
7:49 am

The current situation with anti-gunners really started in 1994 with Clinton’s gun ban, since that time anti-gunners have steadily lost ground politically and legally. They started the fight by trying to take away our guns but the NRA and other pro-gun groups have stood vigilant to remind gun grabbing members of Congress of the big and oftentimes career ending price they will pay when they try to take or put any kind of limit on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The NRA accurately speaks for me and millions of law abiding gun owners.

5 Easy Pieces

January 7th, 2011
7:49 am

The Founding Idealism concerning militias and their armories has little relevance in today’s drive-by collective of Columbine Crips and Bloody Sundays. Supervisory editing and audible counterploys must be available to local governments.

Laws are People too: if constitutional vigilantes attack City Hall, then the Mayor has the right to disarm those vigilantes by taking their guns from their cold dead hands. At some point, no Founding principle is immune from the right of any elected government to ensure it’s own perpetuation.

Even the Mayor of Heaven had to wax Soddom. (and I think Gomorrah).

The problem with one-note Sally’s like Bob Barr is that he tries to appeal to the lizard brained majority of readers who fire their guns in the air and shrug when a child is killed after the bullets fall back to earth. “I didn’t mean nuthin’. It were an accident. I gots a rights to shoots my guns.” or “the child needed killin’. It were toilet paperin’ my house and stealin’ my newspaper.”

Earth to constitutionally-constipated Barr : Why don’t you sponsor a movement to put a firing range on the tarmac at all of our airports.

So what if theirs tons of fuel everywhere. The lizards got rights!!!!

Barr Fan

January 7th, 2011
7:52 am

@ Sunshine et al, why have the cities with the most restrictive gun laws (Washington, DC, LA, Chicago, and NYC) seem to be among the most violent? Why do mass shootings seem to keep happening in “gun-free” zones (Columbine HS, Va Tech, Northern Illinois U., Westroads Mall in Omaha)? Haven’t mean been killing men as long as there have been men (Cain and Abel)? Do you think that just maybe the problem isn’t the guns?

Gunluvr

January 7th, 2011
8:04 am

“Laws are People too: if constitutional vigilantes attack City Hall, then the Mayor has the right to disarm those vigilantes by taking their guns from their cold dead hands. At some point, no Founding principle is immune from the right of any elected government to ensure it’s own perpetuation”.

The mayor has the authority to try to disarm them. The mayor commands the police and in most cases the police will prevail but there are times when the mob will win such as happened during Katrina and right here in Atlanta in 1992 after the Rodney King verdict.

carlosgvv

January 7th, 2011
8:06 am

Anyone who takes the time to learn American History knows the founding fathers meant the right to keep and bear arms was for the MILITARY, not civilian. Gun manufacturers, and their bought and paid for politicans, have turned America into a murderous shooting gallery where no one is safe. Guns should be only for the military and police. Countries like Canada and Japan have a lot more sense than we do.

MrTyTn

January 7th, 2011
8:07 am

To: 5 Easy Pieces at 7:49 am.

With regards to your comment about “constitutional vigilantes” attacking City Hall and the Mayor having the right to take the guns from their cold dead hands. In 1946, McMinn County, Tennessee was controlled by a corrupt political machine who held the sheriff’s office and other county offices and maintained their power through intimidation, were thrown out of office at gunpoint. Or more precisely, cornered at gunpoint and decided to to hand over power when sticks of dynamite started getting heaved at them.

The lizards and constitutional vigilantes that threw them out? Recently returned WWII GIs who had just spent the previous few years fighting against two countries where individual rights for their citizenry were totally subordinated to the rights of the State. And the spark that started the revolt? In a county that is overwhelmingly white, some of the approximately 150 “deputies” hired by the sheriff’s department to oversee that year’s elections tried to prevent a black veteran from voting.

And before you get all up in arms (I know, bad pun) about them having other options, their appeals to the state and federal authorities had been ignored.

See Battle of Athen 1946 or the McMinn County War 1946.

Daniel Boone

January 7th, 2011
8:13 am

I am an avid outdoor sportsman and hunter. I believe it is my right to have firearms for hunting and protection. That right goes hand in hand with being a law abiding citizen without boundary lines. I very much favor strict gun registration, background checks and waiting periods. If a person wants a gun for the right reason, that shouldn’t be an issue. Unfortuantely, the reality is that this will still not keep guns out of the hands of the bad guy. Hopefully the Darwin Principle will balance things out.

Ezra

January 7th, 2011
8:20 am

We can not pick and choose which constitutional right we observe and uphold. However, there are those who want their own interpretation of the constitution. If you really want to change something to make it better try getting our property rights back.

MrTyTn

January 7th, 2011
8:24 am

To: carlosgvv at 8:06 am

You should learn some Amerian history I suggest. One of the few advantages American colonists had over the British, tactically, was the Kentucky rifle, owned and operated by the citizens of the colonies, particularly on the frontiers. The Kentucky rifle was deadly to 300 yards, allowing American sharpshooters to pick off British officers and NCOs well before British formations came within the 80 yard range of their Brown Bess muskets, standard issue infrantry weapon of the British Army at the time. It could be argued that the Kentucky rifle was the “assault” weapon of its time and was completely in the hands of the citizens.

And Lexington and Concord was fought over the British attempt to take the local citizens’ cannon and munitions. There was no formal military formation or government that controlled those weapons. It was a group of farmers who decided they wanted one just in case.

No, if the ordinary citizens had not been armed or able to arm themselves in 1776, our money could well have been sporting the profile of the Queen instead of Dead Presidents.

Wake Up

January 7th, 2011
8:33 am

The simple fact is, there are plenty of people (won’t name the persuasion) that need killing right here in Atlanta, particularly the thugs prowling the area around Georgia Tech. (See today’s headlines). APD and Georgia Tech Police can’t or won’t control it. A few dead thugs might be a good deterrent. Kill those SOB’s. I’ll help dig their graves.

Duane

January 7th, 2011
8:39 am

All firearm registration is good for is to show who still needs to get one. Fortunately I live in Texas and there’s little to know restrictions. I’m waiting for my short barrel rifle permit now and it would do me no good to have it today because I don’t have the 2grand for a short barrel rifle. Conceal carry laws do not apply to vehicles, thus leaving me with not needed a carry permit. It is necessary for us to exercise these rights. If no one is buying bad ass guns with supressors legislators will think it’s easy to pass laws against them. Use your rights today before they take them away

Leon

January 7th, 2011
8:40 am

Wake up = I agree with you and support a well armed militia if it is organized for civilian protection (unlike the federal army that is constitutionally prohibited) but when was the last time you heard of a gun seller being given like for seloling a gun illegally to a felon????????????????????????Wjho really funds the NRA??????????

Sunshine

January 7th, 2011
8:43 am

@ Barr Fan…..My way of being smart. I am TOTALLY against “anyone” owning or posessing a gun short of the military to “DEFEND” our country…..not American citizens. It’s all about interpretation of the constitution. In the 1800’s there were no need for American citizens to bear arm and protect what???? Foreign invasion was the answer. Protection involved getting into fist fights or a couple of slap arounds. People were not getting killed over shoes, a cigarette, a verbal altercation, etc. As for those who support the bear arm due to rape, assault, etc., there are other means to solving disagreements. I agree, you cannot hold guns accountable for human actions. The U.S. needs to enact more stiffer penalities toward violence. Sending criminals to jail with TVs, cellphones, showers, bed, bath, etc. is not the answer. Our prison system is just a safe place for the displaced.

[...] Original post: Ohio court slaps gun control advocates – Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog) [...]

Peter

January 7th, 2011
8:49 am

Hey 5 Easy Pieces: The insults you hurl — “lizard barined”, “I didn’t mean nuthin’. It were an accident. I gots a rights to shoots my guns.” — are typical of the hysterical anti-gun rights crowd. All gun owners are toothless hillbillies, right? I guess the facts are of no interest to people like you, who are consumed by anger and their own irrational fear.
Fact: The vast majority of states allow concealed carry, three (VT, AK and AZ) without any permit. Only two (WI and IL) ban concealed carry, and another 4 effectively ban it (CA, NY (varies by locale), NJ and MD). Guess what? Crime has gone down and blood has not run in the streets since the mid-1980s when state CCW laws began to be liberalized. Very, very few concealed carry holders are involved in crime, despite the “Violence Policy Center’s” lies to the contrary.
FACT: Yes, the US has more gun deaths (a good portion of them suicides) than many other industrialized nations. However, the violent crime rate — rape, robbery, murder, assault per capita — is much higher in many other countries with less gun ownership (such as the UK). Can we do better in restricting criminal’s access to guns? Yes we can. But that does not lead to the conclusion that people who have clean criminal records and no history of serious mental illness should be restricted from owning or carrying a firearm if they so choose.

I am sorry that people like you are so afraid of and apparently angry at their fellow citizens. I choose to believe that the vast majority of people are good, responsibile and want to help their fellow man. Why do you believe that a person who wants to own a gun for sporting reasons or for self defense will suddenly turn into a violent killer. Does a gun — an inert hunk of plastic and metal — have some sort of magical power that we are not aware of?

If you are that afraid, I hope you live in a state with restrictive gun laws. Oh, wait, lawsuits have been filed in NJ, NY, MD, etc challenging their gun laws, and the laws in those states will almost certainly be brought in line with the rest of the country. I guess you can always move to the UK. Maybe you’ll feel safer there.

Leon

January 7th, 2011
8:51 am

Hey legislators- ferget about that budget nonsense- earn your keep and allow assault weapons at Falcons games. Next time those Saints pee on our logo will be the last! Same for the airport- that will put an end to all that groping nonsese. Thank God for the NRA

carlosgvv

January 7th, 2011
8:58 am

MrTyTn

You actually make my point for me. At the time you speak of, there was no standing American Army. So, of course, the people had to have guns to fight the British. But that was THEN and this is NOW. We have a well-armed professional military and “the right to keep and bear arms” does not apply to civilians anymore.

Sunshine

January 7th, 2011
9:07 am

Thanks carlosgvv…..

zeke

January 7th, 2011
9:52 am

THE FOUNDING FATHERS KNEW THAT AS LONG AS THE CITIZENS WERE ARMED, THE GOVERNMENT HAD TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE PURSUING SOME ANTI CONSTITUTION POLICY AND THE FORCED CONFISCATION BECAUSE OF THE ARMED CITIZENS! FIRST THING THAT HAPPENS IN A DICTATORSHIP, COMMUNIST STATE IS TO REMOVE ALL PRIVATE WEAPONS, THEN DESTROY THE FAMILY UNITS!! SO FAR WE HAVE AVOIDED THE CONFISCATION OF WEAPONS, BUT, THE LEFTIST-SOCIALIST-DEMOCRAPS HAVE PRETTY WELL DESTROYED MOST FAMILY UNITS!!!!

sean smith

January 7th, 2011
10:02 am

If politicians believe that we all have a right to own and carry a gun please remove the security and metal detectors from the statehouse and capitol. That way they can live in the same dangerous world as the rest of us. Maybe a few of their teabagger friends will decide on a second ammedment solution to lieing cheating politicians.

luangtom

January 7th, 2011
10:02 am

carlosgvv@8:06….Sorry, but the Second Amendment WAS and IS meant for the PEOPLE. It is there so that the PEOPLE have a means to fight the intolerances and tyranny of the Government. It has nothing to do with Government having a personal right to possess arms. It is meant for the PEOPLE to possess arms to fight the tyrannical Government and to have self-preservation. There are sections within our founding documents that make reference to “….enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC….” That is what the Second Amendment allows the citizens to have arms for. Not for hunting, not for plinking, but for fighting against a tyrannical, domestic Government. Our “professional” and well-armed military will be the one to disarm the people should the wrong leaders be in Washington, DC. So, the PEOPLE are armed per the Second Amendment…………

luangtom

January 7th, 2011
10:06 am

carlosgvv@8:58….Sorry, but George Washington commanded the Continental Army fighting the British. Yes, there was a standing Army and yes, there was a militia to supplement that Army. The “Right to Keep and Bear Arms” does pertain to today and does apply to citizens now.

Patriot

January 7th, 2011
10:11 am

One need only look at the Wikileaks releases and the daily news from around the country to realize that the LAST people we want with the exclusive right to be armed are the police and the military. Frankly disarming most of them would probably make us all a lot safer.

EJ Moosa

January 7th, 2011
10:46 am

The right to defend yourself will always be the most important of all rights.

So it is your choice whether or not you choose to accept that responsibility. I choose to embrace it.

StJ

January 7th, 2011
10:49 am

Gun ownership by only the military and police worked well in 1930s Germany, didn’t it? (Unless you were a Jew.)

I see that policy is also working well in the area around North Avenue to 10th Street (otherwise known as the GT campus). I seem to recall a couple Tech students busted for gun possession some time ago. Coddle the criminals, punish the victims…what a great policy. I say offer a reward for anyone who shoots a criminal, the amount of said reward proportional to the criminal’s rap sheet. That would have the beneficial side effect of helping stimulate the economy. :)

Now if we could get national concealed-carry reciprocity passed…that would really send the liberals over the edge.

Tom B

January 7th, 2011
10:59 am

carlosgvv January 7th, 2011 8:06 am

Hey Carlos, try reading more than history books written by modern day liberals. Read the founding fathers papers and you will see that you are wrong.

Pompano

January 7th, 2011
11:10 am

Sounds like Carlosgvv is the one who needs a history lesson. At the time the Constitution was drafted, the US had both a standing Army AND Citizens Militia.

This is a perfect example why you can’t have logical conversations with the anti-gun nuts. They’re perfectly content to present fiction as ‘facts’ – tough when those not constricted by reality choose to contribute to the blogs.

jconservative

January 7th, 2011
11:16 am

“The opinion, authored by Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, noted that if the state preemption law was not enforced, “law-abiding gun owners would face a confusing patchwork of licensing requirements, possession restrictions and criminal penalties as they travel from one jurisdiction to another.”

This same line of thinking needs to apply to State laws being subjective to Federal laws.

mark

January 7th, 2011
11:26 am

Well it seems we have a few panty wearers on here today. They want the police and judges to protect them and families. Good Thinking. I am a lib to a certain degree but I am an true believer in my Right to bare arms, do not believe in permits to allow the 2nd ammendment to apply to me. But with all the banter I am one of those gun carriers that you look down on but you would say Thank you and God Bless if I prevented you or your family from serious harm from some rapist,murderer,or child molester. So before you get on your soap box think of these situations and holler police and see or should I say wish I had a Gun!!

Darwin

January 7th, 2011
11:31 am

Bob’s preaching to the choir again.

Persecution of Gun Owners | Gunalizer

January 7th, 2011
11:36 am

[...] why in a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision such attempts were struck down: Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, noted that if the state preemption law was not enforced, “law-abiding gun owners would face a confusing [...]

chef pierre

January 7th, 2011
11:47 am

Guns are for cowards that want to act brave…………….LOSERS……..

Dave

January 7th, 2011
11:56 am

No Chef, that’s what internet annonymous forums are for.

peoplelover

January 7th, 2011
11:57 am

With over 30,000 gun deaths EVERY year(3 times the number killed in 9-11) we really need people like Bob Barr and the 5 conservative members of the Supreme Court telling everyone the 5th Amendment gives all of us the right to pack whatever rod we want to. Anyone with a 9th grade education can read the 5th Amendment and realize it does not say that. Yes, the 5 conservative Justices misinterpreted OUR constitution.

Dr. Pangloss

January 7th, 2011
12:03 pm

MrTyTn
January 7th, 2011
8:24 am

To: carlosgvv at 8:06 am

You should learn some Amerian history I suggest. One of the few advantages American colonists had over the British, tactically, was the Kentucky rifle, owned and operated by the citizens of the colonies, particularly on the frontiers. Etc.

——————————

Except that the militia with their rifles specialized in running away. The fighting was mostly carried out by the Continentals armed with Charleville military muskets with bayonets supplied by France. The Patriots didn’t get anywhere until they learned to use regular 18th-century line tactics. Still, the British won most of the battles. The US won the last one–Yorktown–because the arrival of a French army under Rochambeau enabled Washington to trap Cornwallis at Yorktown.

Gun worshipers love that militia-with-rifles-hiding-behind-the-trees story, but it’s mostly folklore.

Brad

January 7th, 2011
12:07 pm

So Zeke (and others), are we going to overthrow a government that controls the military? I don’t think a bunch of AR-15s and Glocks are going to outdo M-1 tanks, etc. This argument may have been valid when the country was founded, but it’s clearly outdated. I’m not taking a position on the 2nd Amendment per se, just pointing out the futility of taking on a modern military with small arms.

StJ, I think the Nazi Germany comparison is invalid for the same reason. The outcome would have been the same, other than the Nazis suffering minor casualties.

Dr. Pangloss

January 7th, 2011
12:13 pm

Peter: However, the violent crime rate — rape, robbery, murder, assault per capita — is much higher in many other countries with less gun ownership (such as the UK).

————–

US — 24th in murders per capita. UK — 46th. The only countries worse than the US are miserable, third-world countries.

US — 9th in rapes per capita. UK — 13th. Again, only third-world countries are worse than the US.

US — 6th in assaults. UK — 8th. New Zealand is the only developed country worse than the US.

US — 11th in robberies. UK — 8th.

Rankings from NationMaster

Tom B

January 7th, 2011
12:15 pm

peoplelover January 7th, 2011 11:57 am

Yea peoplelover, You’re right, the 5th amendment doesn’t say that. It’s the 2nd. At least have that 9th grade education before you show up here to debate.

Dr. Pangloss

January 7th, 2011
12:16 pm

Brad
January 7th, 2011
12:07 pm

So Zeke (and others), are we going to overthrow a government that controls the military? I don’t think a bunch of AR-15s and Glocks are going to outdo M-1 tanks, etc. This argument may have been valid when the country was founded, but it’s clearly outdated. I’m not taking a position on the 2nd Amendment per se, just pointing out the futility of taking on a modern military with small arms.

StJ, I think the Nazi Germany comparison is invalid for the same reason. The outcome would have been the same, other than the Nazis suffering minor casualties.
————–
Also, the Nazis encouraged gun ownership, except for Jews, Gypsies, gays, etc.

ken R

January 7th, 2011
12:27 pm

I think there is one thing that most people overlook when it comes to guns in the USA, we are a melting pot of many different races and nationalities.
Most of the countries can control there crime because they are not melting pots, they are homogenous and most of their people think the same.
We have had so many nuts imported our country that it’s no wonder it isn’t worse than what it is, the scary part is that it isn’t getting any better.

ken R

January 7th, 2011
12:28 pm

should be imported into.

Ruger66

January 7th, 2011
12:30 pm

@ carlosgvv – Tell me something. Where did you get that personal policeman to stick in your back pocket for 24/7 protection? Cause once I can get one of those, I won’t need to carry my gun for protection.

It amazes me that people think the military or police force is going to protect you from a crime. I have the utmost respect for both, but you need to face the fact that they are not there to help you every time you might need them, there just aren’t enough to go around.

It is our responsibility to protect ourselves on a daily basis.

Patriot

January 7th, 2011
12:33 pm

The 1968 Gun Control Act is patterned after the Nazi gun control act of 1939.

And instead of dancing around the non-traditional word usage of the 2nd amendment, just look at the writings of the creators of the Bill of Rights and you can see clearly, as the intelligent folks on this blog have already pointed out, that the intention was for the citizens to remain armed against the government and that there should also be no standing armies. Look at what has happened instead. And meanwhile the idiots on both sides of the aisle in Washington are debating just how MUCH the government should violate the rights of citizens, private businesses, and the like in the health care “debate.”

Anyone who thinks we are free hasn’t bothered to look around well enough.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bob Barr and others. Bob Barr said: Barr Code: Ohio court slaps gun control advocates http://bit.ly/gLhuet [...]