by Ken Hanson, Esq.
On October 12, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cleveland’s challenge to the constitutionality of R.C. 9.68. R.C. 9.68 is the provision of Ohio law generally referred to as Ohio’s preemption law, which was implemented over Governor Taft’s veto of House Bill 347. Trying to predict the outcome of a court case based upon oral argument is pure folly, but listening to this argument does instill a sense of optimism for Ohio’s gun owners.
The first thing to note about this case is that it was brought by the City of Cleveland against the State of Ohio. As we noted throughout the debate on HB347, one critical component of the new law is that it shifted the burden back where it belonged – on the cities. If a city wants to have firearm laws, the city now bears the expense and risk of advancing such laws. So from that viewpoint, the simple fact that Cleveland sued the State of Ohio, versus a gun owner or pro-gun group taking Cleveland to court, is a victory for gun owners.
I have said in the past that a layperson observing a court case is kind of like an American watching a Cricket match. Different people are playing different roles, there appears to be rules and score keeping, but danged if we can figure the game out. It really takes an insider to understand and appreciate the game.
Cleveland’s case presents a pretty straightforward question – is R.C. 9.68 constitutional? From there, the issues become convoluted and contrary to what an ordinary person considers logical. In an attempt to provide a roadmap to our supporters, the following simple, generalized summary should be helpful.
