Ohio: Watch Out! Ballot to reverse preemption of gun laws!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Midwest

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
2,569
Location
Kentucky
Ohio: Watch Out! Ballot initiative to reverse preemption of gun laws!


What this ballot initiative would do is to reverse preemption of gun laws in Ohio and lead to a patchwork of gun laws that would vary from city to city.

Two Ohio anti-gun organizations "Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence" and "God Against Guns" along with Cincinnati councilman P.G. Sittenfeld are behind this. It should be noted that he is running for Senator, and I guess this is way of getting publicity.

Sittenfeld's group plans to submit it's first 1,000 signatures by March and then have till July 6 to get 300,000.

US Senate candidate P.G. Sittenfeld pushes gun amendment

http://www.wlwt.com/news/us-senate-candidate-pg-sittenfeld-pushes-gun-amendment/37691330


"The initiated constitutional amendment would seek to reverse a 2006 state law that pre-empted local gun laws, such as concealed-weapon restrictions or assault-weapon bans, in favor of state-level regulation. At least 20 Ohio cities had some type of restriction in place that was nullified by the law, Sittenfeld said.

Jim Irvine, board president of the Buckeye Firearms Association, said the law addressed "a patchwork of laws that just made no sense." He said the ballot effort is the last option for opponents of gun rights whose views are out of step with public opinion, the Legislature and the courts. "That's why they go to this route. Because they can't win on the facts, they can't win on their twisted logic, so they'll try and win with Bloomberg's money," he said."

.
 
I'll keep an eye on it and how it progresses (or not) through the Ohio Government. However, these local laws were struck down once before and likely would again, even iff allowed briefly before a court challenge.
 
I give it slim odds, but email your reps anyway.

Dittos on both counts. Ohio's general assembly is almost free of these anti-gunners, but it's best to let them know when they're doing something right to keep them from straying from the right path.
 
Deanimator said:
I give it slim odds, but email your reps anyway.
1911 guy said:
I'll keep an eye on it and how it progresses (or not) through the Ohio Government....
TimSr said:
...Ohio's general assembly is almost free of these anti-gunners, but it's best to let them know when they're doing something right to keep them from straying from the right path.

Didn't anyone read the OP? This is about an initiative measure to be voted on by the public. This doesn't involve any action by the Ohio Legislature.

Anti-gun groups are attempting to qualify an amendment to the Ohio Constitution for the ballot in an upcoming election. If the amendment qualifies for the ballot and is adopted by the voters (just as I-594 was adopted by the voters in Washington State), local gun laws would no longer be preempted by Ohio state law. Cities and counties would be free to adopt inconsistent, and more restrictive, laws relating to guns.

There is nothing state legislators can do except (and this can be very important) help oppose the initiate -- now at the petition stage, and, if it qualifies for the ballot, during the election campaign.

1911 guy said:
...these local laws were struck down once before and likely would again, even iff allowed briefly before a court challenge.
Do you know why they were struck down? Most likely they were struck down because they were preempted by state law.

If this initiative passes, preemption would go away. So those local laws would not be struck down.
 
I can't see this going anywhere in Ohio.

Yes, we are a swing state taht can go either Repub or Democrat, but we're pretty free on the gun laws and I don't think anyone wants to go back to the days when you could risk a felony by traveling from city to city within one state.


Plus the Clown that introduced this measure is very likely to lose to Strickland in the primary so then you'll have a Democrat and a Republican who are both progun vying for the same senate seat.
 
Cannot in the end, legislators REPEAL a ballot initiative once passed?

And regarding Strickland being "pro-gun", he's turned coat COMPLETELY, now being in favor of an "assault weapons" ban.
 
Deanimator said:
Cannot in the end, legislators REPEAL a ballot initiative once passed?
In most cases, no. In some States the legislature has no power to amend a statute adopted by initiative. In some States, like Washington State, the legislature's power to amend a statute adopted by initiative is limited.

But in this case, the initiative would amend the State's Constitution. So it's doubtful that the legislature would be able to fix the damage.
 
State initiatives are very costly, both in the signature gathering process and in the political advertising, if the initiative actually makes the ballot.

Last November a pro-marijuana group in Ohio spent $25 million in an attempt to get marijuana legalized and failed.

As long as Bloomberg doesn't fund this, we will be OK.
 
Plus the Clown that introduced this measure is very likely to lose to Strickland in the primary so then you'll have a Democrat and a Republican who are both progun vying for the same senate seat.

Strickland is no longer pro-gun.
 
As long as Bloomberg doesn't fund this, we will be OK.

Then if I were I would start worrying and working to get this stopped.

Bloomberg may not be there yet, but he is sure to show up with his check book sooner or later.
 
Frank, it has to go through a portion of the Ohio government before it's allowed on the ballot.

After the 1,000 signatures required to qualify are certified as being legitimate, the Oh. Secretary of State and Atty. Gen. have to sign off that it doesn't conflict with existing state law. (which it does)

If they sign off, it is open to challenge by anyone claiming aggrieved status in the event of passage. This challenge is heard by the Oh. Supreme Court, which is the same court that struck down the laws in effect prior to the preemption bill that was passed several years ago. (another hurdle for getting on the ballot)

As for the original preemption bill, it wasn't because they were preempted by state law, it was because the state (and voters) realized that allowing, even in a "home rule" state, one locality to place a felony charge for something completely legal in another location was ridiculous. For example, Cleveland (I work there but do not live there) classified any firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine of more than ten rounds as a "machine gun". Owning an AR15 was a felony in Cleveland, you had an unregistered machine gun.

In short, at the time, there really was no coherent state law regarding firearms. Generalities and non-specifics. Cities could pass anything they wanted and not violate state law, as we basically had none. That changed when the CCW law was passed and "home rule" laws were found to be in violation of (new) state law.

Several larger cities (Cleveland being one of them) sued to retain preemption and lost in the Oh. Supreme Court, the same court that will hear arguments before it can be placed on the ballot.
 
1911 guy said:
...it has to go through a portion of the Ohio government before it's allowed on the ballot.

After the 1,000 signatures required to qualify are certified as being legitimate, the Oh. Secretary of State and Atty. Gen. have to sign off that it doesn't conflict with existing state law.....
Cite your sources. That is usually a ministerial matter and consistent with the initiative processes in other States.

1911 guy said:
...As for the original preemption bill, it wasn't because they were preempted by state law, it was because the state (and voters) realized that allowing, even in a "home rule" state, one locality to place a felony charge for something completely legal in another location was ridiculous....
That makes no sense. What original preemption bill? What do you claim happened? Provide sources and documentation.

1911 guy said:
.....at the time, there really was no coherent state law regarding firearms. Generalities and non-specifics. Cities could pass anything they wanted and not violate state law, as we basically had none. That changed when the CCW law was passed and "home rule" laws were found to be in violation of (new) state law....
Well that's what preemption is -- local law being found to be superseded by state law. Cite the case or cases that determined that.

1911 guy said:
...Several larger cities (Cleveland being one of them) sued to retain preemption and lost in the Oh. Supreme Court, the same court that will hear arguments before it can be placed on the ballot....
Cite the case so that we can all read the decisions for ourselves.

And why would the Ohio Supreme Court be looking at the initiative before it gets placed on the ballot. That certainly isn't the procedure in other States. So cite the Ohio law that gives the Ohio Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear arguments about an initiative measure before it even goes on the ballot.
 
Quote: Cite your sources. That is usually a ministerial matter and consistent with the initiative processes in other States.
Ohio isn't other states. Each state has a slightly different process for legislation and initiative.

Source for process of ballot initiative in Ohio, note sub-section (C):
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3519.01

Quote: That makes no sense. What original preemption bill? What do you claim happened? Provide sources and documentation.
Of course it doesn't make sense. That's why the preemption bill was passed in the first place.

Original preemption bill:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/house-bill-347-sweeping-firearms-law-reform-bill-headed-governor-taft

Cities sue against preemption and lose:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ohio-supreme-court-sides-gun-owners-upholds-ohios-preemption-law

Not to sound too argumentative, Frank, but we Ohio residents have lived through this in the last decade. And you, a well versed lawyer, should know that laws and the process of making laws varies from state to state. Maybe Ohio is better, maybe worse. But for sure, our process is apparently different than you are accustomed to.
 
Last edited:
A lot has happened in Ohio regarding gun rights and gun laws, the majority of it since 2004. Considering the first firearm related law for the territory was passed in 1788 and no major changes until 1974, we've had a lot of catching up to do.

Here's a brief time line, you can follow the almost soap-opera like drama from 2004 onward. It might give you a better idea of what's been going on here in the Buckeye state. It might also make it a little plainer why we're not dealing with a "normal" situation regarding our gun laws.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ohio-gun-rights-timeline-journey-towards-freedom
 
1911 guy said:
Quote: Cite your sources....
Thank you for the citation. Those citations demonstrate you many of your statements in post 12 were incorrect.

1911 guy said:
Source for process of ballot initiative in Ohio, note sub-section (C):
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3519.01
The Ohio statute you linked to shows that in you were wrong when you wrote (post 12):
1911 guy said:
..the Oh. Secretary of State and Atty. Gen. have to sign off that it doesn't conflict with existing state law. (which it does)
...
That is not true. What the Attorney General does, as set out in 3519.1 of the Ohio Revised Code is:
...Within ten days after the receipt of the written petition and the summary of it, the attorney general shall conduct an examination of the summary. If, in the opinion of the attorney general, the summary is a fair and truthful statement of the proposed law or constitutional amendment, the attorney general shall so certify and then forward the submitted petition to the Ohio ballot board for its approval under division (A) of section 3505.062 of the Revised Code. If the Ohio ballot board returns the submitted petition to the attorney general with its certification as described in that division, the attorney general shall then file with the secretary of state a verified copy of the proposed law or constitutional amendment together with its summary and the attorney general's certification....
In other words, the AG's role is limited to making a determination of whether the summary of the proposed law constitutional amendment as set out in the petition used for the gathering of signatures is a fair and accurate summary. The Ohio ballot board (as set out in 3505.062) reviews the material for form, and if the form is acceptable prepares ballot materials and sends them back to the Attorney General. The Attorney General then forwards the material to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the ballot.

There is nothing in 3519.1 (or 3505.062) to suggest that the Attorney General, the ballot board, or the Secretary of State consider the substance of the proposed law or constitutional amendment. They perform purely ministerial functions to assure that the proposed law or constitutional amendment has been accurate described to to persons signing the petition and, if the measure as gathered enough signatures, properly described to voters on the ballot.

Nor does 3519.1 support your contention that (post 12):
...If they sign off, it is open to challenge by anyone claiming aggrieved status in the event of passage. This challenge is heard by the Oh. Supreme Court,...
What 3519.1 says is:
...Any person who is aggrieved by a certification decision under division (A) or (B) of this section may challenge the certification or failure to certify of the attorney general in the supreme court, which shall have exclusive, original jurisdiction in all challenges of those certification decisions.
In other words, someone can challenge the certification process in the Ohio Supreme Court. That would be a challenge only with regard to the process, not the substance of the proposed law or constitutional amendment.

1911 guy said:
What this show was that in fact Ohio adopted in 2006 a state law to the effect that local laws related to firearms would be preempted by state law. How does that equate to your statement in post 12:
...As for the original preemption bill, it wasn't because they were preempted by state law,...

1911 guy said:
But that's not the same as what you wrote in post 12:
...Several larger cities (Cleveland being one of them) sued to retain preemption...
As described in the article, the cities sued in 2007 to, effectively, retain their local laws (not retain preemption). They lost because the state preemption law adopted in 2006 did preempt the local laws.

1911 guy said:
....And you, a well versed lawyer, should know that laws and the process of making laws varies from state to state. Maybe Ohio is better, maybe worse. But for sure, our process is apparently different than you are accustomed to.
Actually, the Ohio process is pretty consistent with that of other States. You either don't completely understand it or didn't describe it accurately.

The point is that Ohio has a state law preempting local laws relating to guns, and that state law would be tossed our by this initiative, again leaving local governments free to adopt varied and inconsistent laws. Nothing that the Ohio Attorney General or Secretary of State can do with regard to that can affect the substance of that. Their actions are limited to a determination of whether the process of qualifying the initiative has been properly followed.
 
Quote:
You either don't completely understand it or didn't describe it accurately.

Probably a combination of the two.

However, my original question remains. These local laws were in effect. They were struck down when the preemption bill passed. Cities challenged to retain their own laws. They lost the case on Constitutional grounds.

Given that these laws have been struck down in the past on constitutional grounds, not merely an opinion, what real threat does this pose? A suit to void this would seem like a slam dunk.

ETA: Found another article hat answers this question. Did not see this in OP link. He's proposing an amendment to the Ohio Constitution.
 
1911 guy said:
...Given that these laws have been struck down in the past on constitutional grounds, not merely an opinion, what real threat does this pose? A suit to void this would seem like a slam dunk.

ETA: Found another article hat answers this question. Did not see this in OP link. He's proposing an amendment to the Ohio Constitution.
First, it looks like you answered your question.

So yes, this initiative is a real and serious threat for Ohio gun owners, and a lawsuit to void it, if adopted, would definitely not be a slam dunk. In fact, it could easily be a lost cause.

Second, let's look at the "constitutional" issue which resulted in the cities losing in their attempt to escape state preemption of their local gun laws. To understand the issue one needs to read the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court.

The issue before the Ohio Supreme Court was whether the state preemption law was valid and effectively preempted local gun laws. The constitutional dimension related to the fact that under the Ohio Constitution (Section 3, Article XVIII) municipalities have the:
...authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws....
The cities argued that the state preemption law was invalid as an impermissible interference with those constitutionally protected powers of municipalities. The Ohio Supreme Court did not accept that argument, finding that the state preemption law was a valid, general law.

Nothing in the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in that case (Cleveland v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6318) casts doubt upon the power of the legislature, or the voters of Ohio through the initiative process, to discard the state preemption of local gun laws.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top