Jump to content

Open Carry city preemption?


Likwid

Recommended Posts

My friend's son is in DEEP DOO-DOO for having a gun on school property.....had a 38 in his waistband and "instilled panic" in a neighbor across the street who saw "teens with guns" at the elementary school basketball court. When the cops showed up, DO NOT PAST GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200 the sentence is way more severe for having a gun on school property.....he's 17 so he should have known better....dumbass.

Underage with a concealed handgun on school property. Dumbass deserves what he gets and more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend's son is in DEEP DOO-DOO for having a gun on school property.....had a 38 in his waistband and "instilled panic" in a neighbor across the street who saw "teens with guns" at the elementary school basketball court. When the cops showed up, DO NOT PAST GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200 the sentence is way more severe for having a gun on school property.....he's 17 so he should have known better....dumbass.

... wow

Underage with a concealed handgun on school property. Dumbass deserves what he gets and more.

srsly qft. Kid deserves a first degree felony and jail time. Hopefully they at least give him a felony so he can never own a handgun again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found this today, man, doing this legal research really takes me back to my college law classes, I really miss this stuff. Anyway, here's some research, please remember I am not a lawyer and this is simply my interpretation using publicly available information, please consult an attorney for any assistance. (Putting the full disclaimer since if you google Ohio open carry preemption OR is first....)

In Ohioans for Concealed Carry(OFCC) v, Clyde the county court ruled in favor of Clyde.

OFCC appealed

While in appeal review the state enacted 2006 Sub.H.B. No. 347, creating R.C. 9.68 which further explained the rights of Ohio citizens.

Appeals course therefore overturned the lower court ruling that the ordinance was in direct conflict with Ohio constitution.

Clyde appealed to Ohio Supreme court.

By a vote of 4-3 the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate decision.

The issue presented in this case concerns whether Clyde Ordinance

2004-41, which prohibits licensed handgun owners from carrying concealed

handguns in Clyde city parks, is a valid exercise of the municipality’s home-rule

power according to Section 3, Article XVIII, of the Ohio Constitution. Because

the ordinance is an exercise of the municipality’s police power that conflicts with

a general law, the ordinance is unconstitutional. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the court of appeals.

Supreme Court Ruling

Clyde City Ordinance No. 2004-41 is an exercise of the

municipality’s police power that conflicts with R.C. 2923.126, a general law.

ordinance is therefore unconstitutional. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Full summery available here http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2008/2008-ohio-4605.pdf

Yes it's raining, so I got bored when I couldn't ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...