Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freepatriot32

More incremental crap from the hoplophobes. This week it's assault weapons. Next week it will be semi-auto pistols. In a few weeks they'll go after .22 bolt-action rifles, followed shortly thereafter by shotguns. They won't rest until we're completely disarmed.

BTW, what are the STATE gun laws in Ohio? For a long time Tombstone, Arizona had a ban on carrying firearms, dating back to the days when the Earps were town marshals. Arizona has always been an open carry state, so some guys in Tombstone challenged the local ordinance. It turns out that state law (at least in Arizona) trumps a local ordinance. It would seem that if possession of so-called "assault weapons" is legal in Ohio then the city council of Columbus needs to STFU.


14 posted on 07/13/2005 3:26:21 PM PDT by billnaz (What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: billnaz

That's a good question. Does Ohio have "preemption"?


16 posted on 07/13/2005 3:42:55 PM PDT by Redcloak (We'll raise up our glasses against evil forces singin' "whiskey for my men and beer for my horses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: billnaz
BTW, what are the STATE gun laws in Ohio? For a long time Tombstone, Arizona had a ban on carrying firearms, dating back to the days when the Earps were town marshals. Arizona has always been an open carry state, so some guys in Tombstone challenged the local ordinance. It turns out that state law (at least in Arizona) trumps a local ordinance. It would seem that if possession of so-called "assault weapons" is legal in Ohio then the city council of Columbus needs to STFU.

Generally, states have overall laws, but cities can have specific laws. Unless a state makes a law that states that all guns are legal, and that no city, county, or municipality shall infringe upon. Then cities generally can make laws prohobiting certain types or all firearms.

The Peoples Republic of Chicago bans handguns, but they're legal in most of the rest of the Socialist State of Illinois. Now the state recently passed a law stating that if somebody shoots somebody in self defense of their lives or property, and the city of residence has a law banning guns, the person cannot be prosecuted by the city, even though the person technically broke the law.

This was in response to a situation that happened about a year ago or so, where someone broke into a home in Highland Park. The same person broke in again the next night, this time the entire family was home. Dad had a gun in the house, illegal in Highland Park, and shot the burglar. The city was originally going to prosecute, until the uproar. The city saw negative publicity they were receiving, and reversed their stand. After that state law makers fast tracked a law protecting residents from this situation.

Its still illegal to own a hand gun in Highland Park or Chicago, but a resident can't be prosecuted for breaking that law in defense of their home.

If state law simply allowed gun ownership, over ruled city laws that banned gun ownership, then federal law, or the second amendment would over rule all.

22 posted on 07/13/2005 7:32:23 PM PDT by mountn man (Everyone brings joy into a room. Some when they enter. Others when they leave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson