Case Information: City of Cleveland v. Ohio, No. 2009-2280 (Ohio, submitted June 30, 2010)
At issue: Challenging Ohio’s concealed carry law. In 2006, Ohio adopted a concealed firearms licensing system. The legislation included a statement, arguably a substantive provision, purporting to preempt local ordinances that regulate or prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms. The City of Cleveland sued the state, alleging that the provision runs afoul of the Home Rule Amendment to the Ohio Constitution, which expressly grants to municipalities the authority to adopt and enforce police regulations that do not conflict with the general law of Ohio. In 2009, the Court of Appeals of Ohio held that the trial court erred in denying Cleveland’s motion for summary judgment. Ohio appealed that ruling.
Law Center’s Brief: Our brief argues that local firearms regulations must reflect the needs of localities and their residents. It asserts that municipalities have the right under Ohio’s Home Rule Amendment to enact gun control ordinances in accordance with the needs of their citizens and, in essence, that gun control laws are more of a local than a statewide concern. Further, our brief argues that Ohio’s purported gun law did not sufficiently regulate firearm possession in a way that would preempt local regulation. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the statute does not unconstitutionally infringe upon home rule authority and, thus, permissibly displaces municipal firearm ordinances.