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?
We did Compromise with HB347. Some cities had zero firearms laws and some were far too overbearing like Cleveland, Toledo and Columbus. Now we are all the same. What is that if not "compromise"?
ReplyDeleteOr, by compromise, do you mean that gun owners always give up something?
"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.."
Seriously though, deep down you know and already pegged what the problem is with Cleveland or any other political subdivision making its own law and why we object.
Besides, why should the Cleveland city government be permitted to oppress gun owners there? Even if the majority of residents approve of that oppression, it's still oppression, and needs to be forcefully stamped out, as Ohio law calls for.
ReplyDelete"What's your opinion? Why should Cleveland have to give in?"
ReplyDeleteThey don't have to give in. They can break the law, create whatever gun restrictions and bans they want, and take the issue to court.
Are you advocating that locales should be able to bypass state laws? What if it was working the other way for your cause? Let’s say a city in Illinois wants local CCW permits. Or Montana wants to have its own gun laws free from the ATF by not participating in interstate commerce. You would object to these, right? I would say that Illinois city would need to take it to the state level and push for at least a “may issue” law.
ReplyDeleteIn this case Ohio specifically made a law that prevents locales from enacting gun laws more strict than the state laws (most states don’t have such a law). And you can blame Columbus for setting back the Ohio gun control movement. They took it too far by making laws which would have gun owners arrested for driving through Columbus with the wrong firearm in the trunk (even if you don’t live there). Ohio felt it had to step in and make blanket state gun laws to protect its citizens.
As for Cleveland, they really should stop doing things that will cause more of its residents to flee the city.
-TS
FWM, I don't know if I "pegged" the problem as much as pointed out the inconvenience to gun owners. I think a municipality should be able to have it's own rules. If that's so difficult for the gun owners who don't live there, then those strict laws could be adopted state-wide just to make things simple. Otherwise, why don't you leave poor Cleveland alone and stay in Dayton - that's where you're from isn't it?
ReplyDeleteMikeB: I think a municipality should be able to have it's own rules.
ReplyDeleteAgain, what if they are rules that you don’t agree with- like less regulation than the state or federal government?
-TS