News From Ohioans For Concealed Carry
Home Rule Doesn't Always Apply
Written by Dan White
Monday, 18 December 2006
Several big city mayors are still shaking their fists at the Ohio legislature and threatening a legal battle over statewide preemption in Ohio.
While they claim that this is an issue of public safety, they don't seem to be able to provide any evidence to back it up. The NRA reports that in the last six years, there have been only three charges under local "Assault Weapons Bans" (AWB). Hardly a crime epidemic, and there were almost certainly other charges to pursue in those few cases.
The national AWB sunset back in September with hardly a whimper. Every official study showed it had no effect on crime, and there have been no mass shootings by machinegun wielding criminals since it expired (and for good reason since the ban had absolutely nothing to do with automatic firearms, which are still very strictly regulated). There is no statewide AWB for the same reason, it does nothing. Yet we are to believe that these cities know better than their neighbors, the state, and the nation? That the vast majority of states don't know what they're doing, because almost all of them also have statewide preemption? That somehow these few cities got it right when everyone else got it wrong?
Might it instead be a case of a small, anti-gun minority desperately trying to hold on to their power and push their misguided views on the majority? You might think so when you learn that the AWB merely scratches the surface.
The Associated Press is circulating a story reporting that some of these cities are considering banning together to "take the state to court on the basis that that the state law violates their constitutional right to home rule".
The problem is that "home rule" was never intended to allow cities to do whatever they want and thumb their noses at the rest of the state. Home Rule was intended to allow cities to decide whether skateboarding on the sidewalk is a nuisance or how much to pay their fire chief.
Home rule does not extend to deciding what constitutional rights (whether protected by the US or Ohio Constitutions) their citizens are entitled to. A city can't decide that a newspaper delivered to the city can't criticize the mayor. They can't decide that their local police department doesn't need a warrant to search your house. They can't decide that their female citizens can't vote. And they can't decide that you don't have the right to carry a firearm for self-defense if you choose to.
One argument that they raise is that private property owners can make decision they can't. A private property owner can prohibit a CHL holder from coming on to their property, but a city can't prohibit a CHL holder from visiting a city park.
Guess what folks, there are LOTS of differences between public and private property. Why? Because private property is owned by one or more citizens, while public property is owned by all citizens.
If I want to decide nobody wearing a Pittsburg Steelers jersey may set foot on my property, then you'll never see black and gold on my land. But let Cleveland City Council pass an ordinance prohibiting Steelers fans from entering City Limits and watch the lawsuits fly. These mayors and city council members need to remember that "city property" is not owned by them, it is owned by the citizens.
But, let us take a look at the bigger picture for the moment. First, the Ohio CHL law has been on effect for over two years now. Nearly 90,000 Ohioans have been issued Concealed Handgun licenses. How many cases have there been where a CHL holder has committed a crime in a park with their firearm? I haven't heard of a single one.
Is the argument that they "might" commit a crime a valid one? About as valid as the fact that someone might hit another person with a baseball bat. Should we ban baseball bats from city parks and close all the baseball diamonds? Or is it sufficient that it is already against the law to assault someone, regardless of that weapon is used?
Crime will happen regardless (newsflash: crime is already illegal, making it more illegal isn't going to change anything). The only thing banning CHL holders from carrying their firearm with them is going to accomplish is to ensure the crime is successful. Disarming a victim does not protect the victim from harm.
Most states have preemption. Uniform gun laws protect against accidental infractions. The Ohio legislature has spoken loud and clear by overriding Governor Taft's veto. Fighting this in court is not only bad public policy, but a waste of taxpayer money which could be better spent on more productive endeavors to produce a real benefit to the public good.
There is a time and a place for Home Rule. Fighting gun law preemption isn't it.
Home Rule Doesn't Always Apply
Written by Dan White
Monday, 18 December 2006
Several big city mayors are still shaking their fists at the Ohio legislature and threatening a legal battle over statewide preemption in Ohio.
While they claim that this is an issue of public safety, they don't seem to be able to provide any evidence to back it up. The NRA reports that in the last six years, there have been only three charges under local "Assault Weapons Bans" (AWB). Hardly a crime epidemic, and there were almost certainly other charges to pursue in those few cases.
The national AWB sunset back in September with hardly a whimper. Every official study showed it had no effect on crime, and there have been no mass shootings by machinegun wielding criminals since it expired (and for good reason since the ban had absolutely nothing to do with automatic firearms, which are still very strictly regulated). There is no statewide AWB for the same reason, it does nothing. Yet we are to believe that these cities know better than their neighbors, the state, and the nation? That the vast majority of states don't know what they're doing, because almost all of them also have statewide preemption? That somehow these few cities got it right when everyone else got it wrong?
Might it instead be a case of a small, anti-gun minority desperately trying to hold on to their power and push their misguided views on the majority? You might think so when you learn that the AWB merely scratches the surface.
The Associated Press is circulating a story reporting that some of these cities are considering banning together to "take the state to court on the basis that that the state law violates their constitutional right to home rule".
The problem is that "home rule" was never intended to allow cities to do whatever they want and thumb their noses at the rest of the state. Home Rule was intended to allow cities to decide whether skateboarding on the sidewalk is a nuisance or how much to pay their fire chief.
Home rule does not extend to deciding what constitutional rights (whether protected by the US or Ohio Constitutions) their citizens are entitled to. A city can't decide that a newspaper delivered to the city can't criticize the mayor. They can't decide that their local police department doesn't need a warrant to search your house. They can't decide that their female citizens can't vote. And they can't decide that you don't have the right to carry a firearm for self-defense if you choose to.
One argument that they raise is that private property owners can make decision they can't. A private property owner can prohibit a CHL holder from coming on to their property, but a city can't prohibit a CHL holder from visiting a city park.
Guess what folks, there are LOTS of differences between public and private property. Why? Because private property is owned by one or more citizens, while public property is owned by all citizens.
If I want to decide nobody wearing a Pittsburg Steelers jersey may set foot on my property, then you'll never see black and gold on my land. But let Cleveland City Council pass an ordinance prohibiting Steelers fans from entering City Limits and watch the lawsuits fly. These mayors and city council members need to remember that "city property" is not owned by them, it is owned by the citizens.
But, let us take a look at the bigger picture for the moment. First, the Ohio CHL law has been on effect for over two years now. Nearly 90,000 Ohioans have been issued Concealed Handgun licenses. How many cases have there been where a CHL holder has committed a crime in a park with their firearm? I haven't heard of a single one.
Is the argument that they "might" commit a crime a valid one? About as valid as the fact that someone might hit another person with a baseball bat. Should we ban baseball bats from city parks and close all the baseball diamonds? Or is it sufficient that it is already against the law to assault someone, regardless of that weapon is used?
Crime will happen regardless (newsflash: crime is already illegal, making it more illegal isn't going to change anything). The only thing banning CHL holders from carrying their firearm with them is going to accomplish is to ensure the crime is successful. Disarming a victim does not protect the victim from harm.
Most states have preemption. Uniform gun laws protect against accidental infractions. The Ohio legislature has spoken loud and clear by overriding Governor Taft's veto. Fighting this in court is not only bad public policy, but a waste of taxpayer money which could be better spent on more productive endeavors to produce a real benefit to the public good.
There is a time and a place for Home Rule. Fighting gun law preemption isn't it.
