OFCC Appeals Denial to Intervene in Cleveland

Written by Daniel White

Wednesday, 28 January 2009 12:51

Ohioans For Concealed Carry, along with the National Rifle Association, has appealed the denial by the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas of our motion to intervene as a defendant in the City of Cleveland v. State of Ohio suit.

This suit was originally filed by the City of Cleveland against the State arguing that Statewide Preemption of gun laws as denoted in ORC 9.68 is unconstitutional. On December 31, 2008, Cleveland lost that suit based upon OFCC v. Clyde and filed an appeal on January 12, 2009. OFCC and the NRA are attempting to join in as co-defendants in order to help fight to preserve preemption.

Cleveland is claiming that Clyde does not apply because preemption only applies to handgun laws. Of course, nowhere in 9.68 does it state it only applies to handguns, but that isn't stopping Cleveland from grasping at straws.

They are also claiming 9.68 is unconstitutional because it awards court costs to parties successfully challenging municipalities that pass ordinances in violation of state law. Another claim is that no local law can be in violation because "there [are] no comprehensive set of statewide firearm laws." Apparently, all the gun laws in the Ohio Revised Code are not "comprehensive" enough for them.

Basically, Cleveland is thumbing its nose at the Ohio legislature, and the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas seems content to let them have every advantage by denying OFCC and the NRA the ability to fight for your rights in this case.