In the most simplistic words, Cleveland wants to maintain/implement restrictions on firearms, previously 9.68 protected all those rights. Clyde v Ohio set the precedent for 9.68, however, Cleveland is arguing Clyde v Ohio ONLY pertains to CONCEALED carry, therefore Cleveland cannot impose restrictions in regards to CONCEALED carry, but maintains it can impose any other restrictions it sees fit. Where this is dangerous, 9.68 says noone in Ohio can attempt to regulate the sale, carrying (openly or otherwise), and transportation of firearms, that only the State can create/maintain the regulations. argh... i am not a lawyer