| OFCC v. Clyde Not Just About Parks |
|
|
|
| Written by Daniel White | |
| Thursday, 18 September 2008 | |
|
The media is reporting the landmark Ohioans For Concealed Carry v. Clyde case as a simple matter of the Ohio Supreme Court overturning Clyde's ban on firearms in their parks, but the case goes much deeper than that. This case upheld statewide preemption of gun laws, giving teeth to Sec. 9.68 of the Ohio Revised Code which states: Sec. 9.68. (A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition. (emphasis added) Simply put, this means that nearly all gun laws that are not related to zoning are controlled at the State and Federal levels. The Ohio legislature didn't want to burden law abiding citizens with having to learn a patchwork quilt of local gun laws. What might be perfectly legal in one spot could make you a felon by taking two steps across a city boundary controlled by an anti-gun local government. If Clyde had been allowed to keep their park ban, it would have set the stage for expansions of bans anywhere such bureaucrats wanted. Ohio law would have been rendered mute. In the dissenting opinion, the minority argued that Sec. 9.68 is not a general law because private property owners can decide whether or not to let firearms on their property. Rather than being an example of inconsistency, it is a prime example of the consistency that personal property owners have rights that governments do not have. Public property is owned by the taxpayers, not by the mayor or city council. There is statewide consistency, because all private property owners have the same rights, and all local governments do not. Comparing private citizens to public officials is like comparing apples and oranges. The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized Sec. 9.68 as a general law. This not only invalidates any local ban in parks, but also any restrictions on open carry, gun registration schemes, so called "assault weapons bans", bans on sales of firearms within city limits, etc. State law overrides local law, and a local government can't take away gun rights guaranteed by the law and the Ohio Constitution. This is a huge win for Ohio gun owners. |