Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Aaron Zelman passes on | Main | Ruling on right to arms and DV cases »

Ohio Sup Ct upholds pre-emption law

Posted by David Hardy · 29 December 2010 10:55 AM

City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio, Ohio Supreme Court, Dec. 29, 1010. Conflict between Cleveland's enactment of a number of gun regulations, and Ohio's statewide pre-emption law. The City contended that the pre-emption law was unconstitutional under the State constitution's provision of home rule for incorporated cities. The test there was whether the State statute deals with matters of Statewide, general, importance, or tries to dabble in local matters, and the Supreme Court majority held that it was a statute of general importance. It was a statute that sought to make legal standards uniform throughout the State, it applies uniformly to every location in the State and not just this city, it involves the police power.

This seems to me rather obvious. In proof, however, that some courts apply different rules when gun regulations are at issue (witness how in Heller the Court's "liberal wing" suddenly became the strictest of strict constructionists for an hour), the Court of Appeals had struck down the statute, and even held that its provision for attorney fees should a person challenge such ordinances and win was unconstitutional because it “invite[d] unwarranted litigation and attempt[ed] to coerce municipalities into repealing or refusing to enforce longstanding local firearm regulations.”

· State legislation

3 Comments | Leave a comment

John | December 29, 2010 1:17 PM | Reply

Odd - the bottom of page 6 notes that Ohio law prohibits "semiautomatic weapons." I would be surprised if this is the case.

Dann in Ohio | December 29, 2010 3:58 PM | Reply

While some are unhappy about this case even being brought forward by Cleveland, I'm personally glad it's done and settled with a decisive vote. It will resolve a lot of problems in the future.

Jeff | December 29, 2010 7:09 PM | Reply

Why are some unhappy that Cleveland pursued this case?

Thanks,
Jeff

Leave a comment