Rarely does even one day go by that the right to keep and bear arms is not under direct attack by those who would erase it from the Constitution.
Preemption laws are designed to give state residents stability and conformity concerning gun laws and other issues. Lawmakers do not want to subject taxpayers to a patchwork quilt assembly of statutes that may wildly vary between municipalities even in the same county.
Leaders in locales such as Columbus, however, complain that “home rule” is being usurped and they are prevented from developing safer communities. Never mind that they often oppose the very laws that would keep violent criminals off the streets.
They are focused on targeting law-abiding gun owners instead.
The appeals court overturned an injunction granted by a lower court against the state’s preemption of multiple ordinances passed by Columbus. City leaders embarked on a crusade years ago to unravel the state’s authority to supersede local laws concerning gun control.
Mayor Andrew Ginther and City Attorney Zach Klein sued in state court in 2019 arguing that the city had the right to enact local gun restrictions.
A preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs was granted late last year, but that was stayed upon appeal by Ohio.
Meanwhile, Columbus officials busied themselves with passing a flurry of laws targeting lawful gun owners. They included storage mandates for citizens along with a ban on magazines capable of holding 30 rounds or more.
Those laws are on hold yet again, however, with the 10th District’s decision to overturn the injunction. The case is thus remanded for further court review as the district panel concluded Columbus’ legal team came up short. The city did not prove it would suffer irreparable injury, harm to others or that it was in the public interest to have injunctive relief against Ohio’s preemption laws.
Klein was also targeted by the 10th District for what it labeled as “inartful drafting” of legal arguments for the injunction. That’s a powerful blow against a lawyer whose job it is to present the city’s case in a lucid and professional manner.
The panel cited the filing’s “impermissible overbreadth” along with three injunction factors that were unsupported by “clear and convincing evidence.”
Ohio’s political leadership was pleased with the decision. Attorney General Dave Yost issued a press release celebrating the court ruling that “assures that all Ohioans must abide by the same law, state law, when it comes to firearms. Just like we argued in court, firearms owners statewide should have to follow the same rules.”
It is a certainty that Second Amendment opponents will double down on their efforts to relegate gun rights to second-class status. And another case opposing the Columbus statutes is proceeding in Delaware County.
Gun rights advocates may rest easier knowing that the Ohio Supreme Court has twice faced challenges to the state’s preemption law and twice upheld its constitutionality. Undoubtedly it will see yet another effort to strike down state control of weapons issues.
It is noteworthy that preemption never seems to work the other way. For example, if a city in Illinois were to oppose the state’s draconian gun control laws — as many do — the state would immediately pounce on the offending local government.
No, opposition to preemption laws is firmly rooted in local governments wanting to dictate constitutional rights to their citizens. The state is correct to step in and ensure that Ohioans are secure in their right to keep and bear arms.
