Recently, I’ve written about a couple of student op-eds from the University of Miami in Ohio that take issue with the idea of preemption. They address the arguments and have done a pretty good job of demonstrating just some of the reasons why local governments shouldn’t be permitted to create their own gun control laws.
But today, I came across one that tries to make the opposite argument, and it hits on some arguments I’ve heard others make with regard to overriding preemption laws, so guess what I’m doing?
That’s right, boys and girls. I’m taking the college student to school, so buckle up.
Not really, but it sounded fun.
Anyway, here we go. I’ll address a few of these points bit by bit.
Ohio’s Constitution gives cities the power of “local self-government” under Article XVIII, Section 3, meaning municipalities should have authority over issues like public safety. However, state lawmakers have repeatedly blocked that right. Ohio Revised Code 9.68 prevents cities from passing any gun law stricter than state law, making gun regulation a “state-wide concern.” But if public safety is not local, what is?
Local self-government does not and has not ever meant that local communities can override the rights of law-abiding citizens. By the very nature of gun rights being rights, it means local governments and any kind of home rule don’t include the authority to curtail constitutionally protected rights.
Public safety may, in fact, be a local issue, as the author argues, but even in matters of public safety, there are limits on what a local government can do to address it. They can only go so far.
For example, they can’t create felonies that would result in people being locked up for more than a year, no matter how much the community wants to, as a means of improving public safety. Likewise, gun control is off the table as well.
Something being a local issue doesn’t pass along any authority to the local government to overstep its mandated authority. It never has and never will.
According to the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, Ohio recorded 690 firearm homicides in 2023, the vast majority occurring in urban counties like Cuyahoga, Franklin and Hamilton. According to an article by Ohio Capital Journal, in Cleveland alone, some neighborhoods experience homicide rates as high as 57 deaths per 100,000 residents, compared to less than 15 per 100,000 in other parts of the city. By denying cities the right to respond to their own circumstances, the state is not promoting fairness; it is imposing uniform inaction.
Now, this is interesting. The author seems to get that the issue is centered in specific neighborhoods in urban counties, meaning urban neighborhoods. These neighborhoods are the ones everyone in the communities knows to steer clear of late at night, and even during the daytime if they can help it.
But the laws that are supposedly insufficient apply throughout the state. If the laws were the issue, why do a small number of neighborhoods account for much of the total “gun violence” for the entire state of Ohio?
Further, to say that the state is “imposing uniform inaction” is to suggest that absolutely nothing can be done beyond local gun control. If a few neighborhoods account for the lion’s share of violence in the state, why isn’t anyone looking at why that is and trying to undermine the root reasons those neighborhoods are so violent? That’s an action that can be taken without the state permitting the infringement of people’s rights.
Plus, as noted above, any local measure won’t be a felony. That means the repercussions for violating local gun control will be minimal, all things considered, and wouldn’t exactly be meaningful action even if it worked perfectly.
In 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court sided with the state in Cleveland v. State, upholding the preemption law. The court ruled that state-level uniformity was more important than local variation. Since then, Ohio has doubled down. In 2019, House Bill 228 expanded preemption even further, giving gun-rights groups more legal tools to sue cities that try to regulate firearms.
But local leaders have not given up the fight. Columbus tried again in 2023, banning magazines that have over 30 rounds and requiring safe gun storage for residents. The city argued that it has a moral duty to respond to the crisis of gun violence. The State of Ohio sued to stop it. That same year, a judge in Hamilton County sided with Cincinnati, temporarily allowing the city to enforce its own gun restrictions, recognizing that local governments have “the right to protect their citizens from harm,” according to Hamilton County Judge Jennifer Branch.
How did that work out? I’ll give you a hint: It’s covered by the word “temporarily.” The judge was wrong, and her actions were overturned soon after.
Gun ownership is already protected under both the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, but rights come with great responsibilities for gun owners. When a community faces daily threats of violence, it should be able to decide how best to reduce those risks. We trust cities to make decisions about policing, zoning and emergency management, and firearm safety should be parallel among those listed.
First, let’s talk about our responsibilities as gun owners, because yes, they exist.
But those responsibilities come with an understanding of the repercussions that already exist if we fail to act responsibly. That’s fine, too, because people should be held accountable for their own actions, particularly when someone is harmed by those actions.
That’s not what gun control is, though. It’s not about gun owners and their responsibilities. It imposes restrictions on everyone because of the actions of a few, most of whom have never purchased a firearm legally in their life.
As for what we trust cities to do, that’s correct as far as it goes, but the author fails to understand that we also impose limitations on what they can do with regard to many of those things.
For example, a local government can’t decide that public safety is so imperiled that they’ll just wave away the Fourth Amendment. They can’t decide to zone federal property as residential and allow people to build houses there. There are things that routinely limit local government across the board, but it’s only on the matter of gun control where suddenly, there should be no limits.
The author then tries to make the stupid case that gun control doesn’t mean a gun ban, even though that’s largely where it will go, and we all know it.
By that point, though, we’re getting beyond the issues of preemption.
What’s always been fascinating to me is how anti-Second Amendment types, like the author, will make the call for local control over gun laws, but only in implementing new ones. They never seem to think a city should be free to ignore gun control regulations to any degree, even if the elected officials there believe more guns equate to less crime.
No, it’s always a one-way street, which really undermines their arguments across the board.
Then again, it’s not like any of the arguments against state preemption of gun laws have ever been very good.
Editor’s Note: After more than 40 days of screwing Americans, a few Dems have finally caved. The Schumer Shutdown was never about principle—just inflicting pain for political points.
Help us report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
