Cleveland fights for its gun laws before top Ohio court

cleveland.com ^ | 12 October, 2010 | Reginald Fields

[marktwain]

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Cleveland's ongoing quest to enforce tougher gun control rules than state law requires reached Ohio's top court on Tuesday.

The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments in a case pitting the city against the state. The city is fighting to govern its residents with its own set of rules rather than those imposed by an Ohio statute.

Ohio's constitution allows cities to exercise "home rule" to enforce policing ordinances as long as those local rules do not infringe on state "general" laws, which are considered the unquestioned rule of the land.

"One thing the state fails to recognize is that one size does not fit all," Cleveland assistant law director Gary Singletary told the justices. "The city is trying to protect its citizens through reasonable regulation."

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court has already sided with the state, saying the Supreme Court has already established a precedent in a 2008 ruling blocking the city of Clyde from prohibiting concealed carrying of firearms in its city parks because it violated the state's general law.

The Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals overturned the lower court, saying the state gun law was not a general law, according to a four-pronged test the Supreme Court established in a 2002 Canton case.

[marktwain]

Leftists want to subvert your rights in any way they can.

[GOP_Lady]

Northeast Ohio PING, please. :-)

[GOP_Lady]

It appears that the City of Cleveland will lose their suit again. The State of Ohio has a good Supreme Court.

[MamaTexan]

Ohio's constitution allows cities to exercise "home rule" to enforce policing ordinances as long as those local rules do not infringe on state "general" laws, which are considered the unquestioned rule of the land.

Well, Duh!

Cities are political subdivisions of the State, so of course they have to follow general laws.

Maybe the citizenry should sue the city government for deprivation of rights under color of law.......not to mention wasting money!

[Dan Nunn]

Overturning preemption is a primary goal of leftists. If they can make sure that every place you visit has differing gun laws, you will give up and stop attempting to carry your firearm.

Thus accomplishing their (indirect) goal of assisting criminals.

I’d love to ask a question of those suing on behalf of Cleveland - what problems have law-abiding gun owners caused that is making you go this route?

[mmercier]

People dumb enough to still live in Clevland should be be limited to plastic sporks only.

I would also require the return of a used spork to get a new one... Even registration of those issued, and mandatory warantless tossing of any residence who's owner failed to account for their issued device within a predetermined time frame.

Clever people can make very lethal weapons from the plastic.

[Las Vegas Dave]

Special thanks to GOP_Lady for the ping.

Ohio Pings!

To be added to the Ohio Ping List, please freepmail (works best),
LasVegasDave.

[traditional1]

IF you have to go to the City of Cleveland, you would hope that concealed carry is okay....it's nothing but criminals on the streets, even in daylight, and at night, you don't go there, if at all possible.

Of course, it's another City run by Democrats forever, and run into the ground, and totally populated (85%+) by a certain ethnic group, so the crime stats are among the highest in the Nation. Not much better than Detroit, but the buildings are at least still standing, though lots of them are vacant as no business is left there to speak of. It's a wasteland (most of the Democrat County commissioners are currently under indictment and/or have already plead guilty to corruption charges and bribery charges).

[Pontiac]

"Really, what this law is attempting to do is take away the city's rights to regulate the safety of its residents," Singletary said. to regulate the safety of its residents," Singletary said.

"Really, what this law is attempting to do is take away the city's POWER to regulate AWAY the RIGHTS of its residents to protect their own safety"

[Pontiac]

Cleveland has argued that its crime troubles are more severe than in other parts of the state, so gun control rules that apply in rural areas, for example, where crime isn't as much of a worry, should not equally apply in a big city.

Actually sir your argument here argues against your laws prohibiting citizens from concealed carry. In areas with high crime rates the lawful citizen is more in need of a firearm than in rural areas where crime rates are lower.

Does Cleveland have the resources to place an armed police officer on every street corner to protect its forcibly disarmed residents? Obviously not.

In an area where crime is endemic it is a necessity that the citizen has the option of carrying arms to protect his person from the criminals who would harm him. Law enforcement obviously can not protect all of the people all of the time.

The laws that you intend to impose on the citizens of the state (I say the state because should residents of other cities in the state travel to or through Cleveland they would be required to abide by them while in Cleveland and I could equally say the nation) are powerless against the criminal because the law is punitive. The law can not prevent the criminal from carrying a firearm only punish once he is caught disobeying the law. Therefore the law merely disarms the person who obeys the law making the lawful person defenseless against the lawless.