If Cleveland had its way, every gun in the city would have to be registered, no one would carry a weapon openly and assault weapons would be banned.
All three of those rules, however -- and there are others the city would like to impose -- run contrary to an Ohio gun law that took effect three years ago establishing one set of firearm rules for everyone from Lake Erie down to the Ohio River.
The city has had its tougher gun restrictions on hold ever since House Bill 347 passed while it has battled the state to a draw in court over whether the local rules are legal.
Now, the Ohio Supreme Court has decided it will hear the case to settle the dispute for once and for all. A lower court sided with the state, saying only federal and state codes could restrict firearms. But an appeals court backed the city, saying the state gun law is not "general law".
Although I can see the difficulty of gun owners having to contend with a patchwork of municipal laws and the advantage of standardizing the laws state-wide, it doesn't seem right to force a particular city to align itself with state laws it doesn't agree with.
What's your opinion? Why should Cleveland have to give in? Why shouldn't the rest of the state have to align itself with Cleveland, instead of vice versa? This sounds like a case of the pro-gun folks not wanting to compromise.
What's your opinion?