Bad news for Ohioans - with Good news update

[zukiphile]

Summary and update.

Cleveland filed for a declaratory judgment that Ohio Revised Code 9.68, which explicitly provides that only federal and state law can limit the fundamental freedom to keep and bear, is unconstitutional. The trial court quickly ruled that the law was constitutional, but the local court of appeals overturned, finding amongst other problems that since the law provided for attorneys fees if an individual successfully challenges a local gun restriction, the legislature had usurped judicial authority and violated the principle of separation of powers. This despite the existence of hundreds of other ohio laws that provide for attorneys fees.

Today, the Oh Sup Ct found the provision of the code protecting rights uniformly across the state to be constitutional.

http://www.sc.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/...-ohio-6318.pdf

[DogoDon]

Thanks for the update.

I guess now someone should change the title of this thread to "Good News for Ohioans"!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Easy to do.

GEM

[Buzzard Bait]

So what other rights can the local authorities decide you can't have?
bb

[Al Norris]

This is not just a slap-down for Cleveland, it is a slap-down for the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County! From the opinion:

¶17: Therefore, today we reaffirm what we held in Clyde—that R.C. 9.68 is part of a comprehensive statewide legislative enactment—and we hold that the court of appeals erred in analyzing R.C. 9.68 in a vacuum. There are a host of state and federal laws regulating firearms.

¶22: Again, we hold that the court of appeals erred in considering R.C. 9.68 in isolation.

¶29: The court of appeals held that R.C. 9.68 does not prescribe a rule of conduct upon citizens generally but instead limits lawmaking by municipal legislative bodies. However, we note again that the court of appeals erred in considering R.C. 9.68 in isolation rather than as part of Ohio’s comprehensive collection of firearm laws.

This is the Ohio Supreme Court telling judges Cooney, Stewart, and Dyke to adjudicate the law, not politics (refresh your memories by re-reading this post, which contains the link to the appellate decision).

Because this is not a matter of U.S. law, but Ohio law, there is no where else for Cleveland to go.

[Donaldjr1969]

Originally Posted by Al Norris

Because this is not a matter of U.S. law, but Ohio law, there is no where else for Cleveland to go.

Listening to a local news station today and reading it on the web, Cleveland's bozo mayor, Frank Jackson, already said they will appeal. What a complete waste of funds. While him and his rubber stamp, safety director Martin Flask, talk about cutting safety forces to balance the budget, Jackson wants to waste funds to bolster his ego. He only cares about his own personal gain, it seems. If he is really concerned about crime, him and Flask should hire more law enforcement personnel and cut their own salaries. But Frank Jackson has been one of the most wasteful spenders Cleveland has ever seen.

Of course, thumbing his nose at state law is nothing new to that bozo. Cleveland has repeatedly violated Ohio laws stating that Cleveland CANNOT use residency requirements when hiring for a city position. With this being the case, it is logical to assume he will not abide by the state's ruling on gun laws.

The best way to describe Jackson's handling of this is from a soundbite played often on a local news/talk/sports station. This is a word for word quote of what he actually said.

"Problem is, we have a problem. It's not that we don't know what the problems are. We've known those for years. It's not that we don't know what the solutions are. We've known those for years. Problem is we haven't done anything about it."

That pretty much sums it up. Rather than take a proactive approach to controlling crime, let's try a gun ban!

[Al Norris]

That's going to make some interesting reading! The only place he can appeal to is the Federal District Court. Um, what's the jurisdiction? Where's the standing? What's the federal question?

There is none.

[Donaldjr1969]

Al, I am sure that many of our NE Ohio members, as well as myself, will be catching any news we can to post. Of course, this is sure to get buried in the local media. It was just a quick blurb I heard this morning.

Even though I live in Akron, I am about 40 minutes due south of Cleveland. Since Akron really no longer has any local television newscasts (and never really did. 99% of us got our news from the 3, or 4 since 1985, Cleveland TV stations), we basically hear what is going on in Cleveland more than Akron via broadcast media.

edited to add:Al, a longer article has just been posted. It can be viewed at

http://downtown.woio.com/content/cle...-s-ruling-guns

Nice, huh?

[Al Norris]

LOL!

If my comment is accepted, I'll be the first.

[Spats McGee]

Al, your comment was accepted. I just read the story linked above.

I just finished reading the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court. I don't see a federal question anywhere. For the city, there's nowhere to go.

Edited to add: I see now that it was remanded to the CA to have the issue of the single-subject rule, but I don't know enough about Ohio law to know exactly what could happen there.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's the NY Times story on it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/us/30ohio.html?ref=us

The city dudes fear AW strolls by the playground and public square etc. AW like sawed off shotguns were banned by Cleveland but not Ohio.

Uh, isn't there some Fed stuff on those? Did legit NFA folks scared the kids?

Good job, Al!

If owning a firearm is a basic right, as the Supreme Court seems to think, local jurisdictions do not have the authority to state their special circumstances as a reason to violate those rights. One size fits all makes quite a lot of sense to prevent localities from violating basic rights based on their own prejudices. It is easy to recall many towns that violated civil rights of certain people because of their desire to be special. Why not use the special circumstances to simply ban the people who cause the trouble from living in the town? No one would support that now but it was an argument in the past by folks of less than noble beliefs and prejudices.

The folks in Ohio can change their Constitution or try to get the country to change the 2nd Amendment.


Glenn

[zukiphile]

Looks as if you are in.

Spats, the one subject rule requires that each bill pertain only to a single issue. You violate the rule if your bill is about, say, trout fishing, epa automobile testing and flag burning. It is supposed to protect against federal style omnibus bills in which unpopular measures get passed in vote trading amongst members of the General Assembly. In practice, the courts find laws they dislike to have violated it by applying the rule stringently, and give a more generous measure to laws they support.

The 8th district Court of Appeals isn't the only agenda driven one.

Originally Posted by the article

Public Safety Director Marty Flask: ***The inability to control guns in Cleveland where large numbers of people live, work, and gather in close proximity to one another

Emphasis added. Not so much any more.

I grew up in the city and have worked there on and off for thirty years. I remember when all the office buildings were occupied and the streets were busy. Before that I remember when my father's office was downtown. The city was where a man worked and a suburb was where he raised his family.

Now people live and work in the suburbs in no small part because the city drives them away. I do not suggest that Cleveland's gun regulations drove people away, but that they are a symptom of an intrusive countenance in government that productive, middle class people do not have to tolerate.

[Donaldjr1969]

Zuki, what about the city's crime rate that, despite their AW ban and other such crap, still fails to prevent the killings that take place, especially the Perk Park shootings in a place Frank Jackson said is safe... :barf:

And even if the Cleveland gun laws were even more strict, what good would they do? The 3 stooges of Frank Jackson, Martin Flask, and police Chief Michael McGrath have cut the police force to ribbons. How can laws be enforced and the people protected with cuts like that? And the police officers that do remain? Anytime they have to make tough decisions, the chief and the city (mis)leaders will not stand up for them. McGrath knows damn well his arse will be in the sling if he stands up for the officers rather than flask and jackson. One of the CPD's officers, Officer Jim Simone, is known as an officer not afraid to use force. In his 37 year career, he has shot 11 suspects and killed 4. Everytime he has to draw his weapon, jackson's personal mouthpiece, the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper, also rips him to shreds. So how does Frank Jackass expect to make that cesspool of a city safe when they slice and dice the police department yet do not support their officers when they have to do their job?

[Donaldjr1969]

Al, I am right below you in the comments as number two. I also gave you a Thumbs Up on the article....right after I accidentally thumbs-upped my post...

On that local news/talk/sports radio station, the guest morning show host himself even said something to the effect that he would love to stand on the streets of downtown Cleveland and see just how many people are going to stroll along with AWs like the mayor believes will happen.

edited to add: Who here loves how the article is illustrated with a Hi-Point C9???

[zukiphile]

Donald, I am not a supporter of Frank Jackson, but the city's problem certainly didn't start with him. I know some very fine people in the CPD and the city's chief prosecutor was one of my clerks. I am also aware of several in the department who are not so well regarded. POs who "aren't afraid to use force" aren't as well tolerated in well trained suburban departments where residents expect a more amicable relationship with POs.

I didn't intend to detour the thread from the legal issues. I meant to provide some background information to lend context to what people read.