For news media inquires only, please call 1-888-881-2559 x1 and leave us your contact information or email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

In a 4-3 ruling, the Ohio Supreme Court has rejected the City of Clyde's appeal in OFCC v. Clyde and ruled that Clyde's ban on concealed carry in their parks is unconstitutional!

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.

The courts analysis of the law seems to be a refreshing change of tactic from our earlier efforts in the Supreme Court. For instance, on page five, the court acknowledges that the State of Ohio Legislature has authorized carrying a firearm "unless otherwise prohibited" by federal or state law.  This is huge:

Simply put, the General Assembly, by enacting R.C. 9.68(A), gave persons in Ohio the right to carry a handgun unless federal or state law prohibits them from doing so. A municipal ordinance cannot infringe on that broad statutory right.

Proponents of open carry will likely be able to hang their hat on this conclusion for many years to come.

Much has been made of the belief that Ohio's concealed carry law does not operate "uniformly" on a statewide basis because, for instance, one retail store may prohibit concealed carry and another might not.  If it was determined that the law was not uniform statewide it would fail the test of a general law, and thus local governments could pass differing legislation.  The court has put this issue to rest and declared that Ohio's concealed carry law is in fact uniformly applied on a statewide basis, and as such, it is a general law.

Those who dissented with the majority (and would have allowed Clyde's ordinance to stand) revealed their hand in their response, arguing that while they believe the law met three of the four prongs of a general law test the fact that "private" and "public" property is treated differently fails to meet the uniform application test. In otherwords, liberals on the Ohio Supreme Court feel that because the legislature said a private property owner can choose who can or can not enter their property, then local governments should have the same rights too. This notion is so fundamentally flawed its unfortunate they put it in writing, while at best they may have set the stage to challenge those laws that unfairly prohibit concealed carry as unconstitutional.

Proving that the dissenting justices simply don't get the point of statewide consistent gun laws comes this footnote on page 18. 

No one outside the city of Clyde, or perhaps the county of Sandusky, has any legitimate interest in the regulations placed upon the use of a city park in the municipality of Clyde. We can only hope that those who believe that dogs should run unleashed in city parks or those who believe that alcohol should be consumed in city parks are not able to convince a majority of the General Assembly of the merits of their cause.

Stay tuned for more information as we dissect the opinion in this landmark case which upholds Statewide Preemption of local gun laws and protects your gun rights.

Read the opinion in it's entirety here.

Update: Ohioans For Concealed Carry is scheduled to appear in the second half of the 9 o'clock hour on NRA New's Cam & Company tonight to talk in depth about the ruling and it's impact on Ohio gun owners and local governments.