Saturday, December 9, 2006

Cincinnati weapons ban OK'd

Ohio Supreme Court ruling validates 'home rule'
BY DAN KLEPAL | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER

Cincinnati's ban on the possession or sale of semiautomatic weapons, in limbo and unenforced since 2004 when Ohio's 1st District Court of Appeals ruled it unconstitutional, is once again on the books.

At least for a week.

The Ohio Supreme Court issued a ruling Friday that upholds the city's right to outlaw such weapons within the city limits. A majority of the justices cited a provision in the Ohio Constitution commonly referred to as "home rule," as the reason.

Home rule allows municipalities to adopt and enforce ordinances within their jurisdictions that are stricter than state law, so long as they don't conflict with higher law.

In this case, state law bans semi-automatic weapons with a capacity of firing 31 or more rounds without reloading. Cincinnati expanded that law, outlawing rifles and handguns with a capacity to fire 11 or more rounds at a time.

The high court unanimously ruled that Cincinnati's ordinance is not in conflict with state law.

State statutes "do not permit or authorize the possession of semiautomatic firearms that are capable of firing 31 or fewer cartridges without reloading," Justice C.J. Resnick wrote. "There is nothing in the weapons-control measures ... to prevent municipalities from regulating the possession of semiautomatic weapons that hold less than 32 rounds."

But the decision may not stand long. Gov. Bob Taft on Thursday vetoed a concealed-carry gun bill that would override the city's ordinance.

That action was quickly slapped down by the House, which voted 71-21 to override the veto. The Senate will decide the issue with a vote next week. If it overrides the veto, the Cincinnati law will be erased and the Supreme Court ruling will be moot.

Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory promised a lawsuit if the state legislature overturns Taft's veto.

"The legislature needs to pay attention to what the Supreme Court has said. It has upheld the concept that cities should be able to decide issues like this themselves," Mallory said.

The case stems from a criminal case in which Colt Lee Baskin of Cincinnati, was charged in May of 2003 with a weapons violation. Baskin had that charge dismissed by the trial court, which ruled the city ordinance conflicted with a "general law" of the state. The appellate court later affirmed the trial court's ruling.

Baskin's attorney, Robert H. Lyons, could not be reached for comment Friday. But Dave Workman, who works for the Second Amendment Foundation, said the court's ruling violates equal protection under the law because such weapons are allowable in some parts of the state but not in others. The Second Amendment Foundation sued the city five years ago over the right of citizens to carry weapons. That lawsuit become the catalyst for the state passing a law permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons in 2004.

"The state constitution is designed to give people all over the state the same set of rights," Workman said.

Charlie Rubenstein, chief deputy prosecutor who argued the city's case before the high court, said Friday that the ruling is a great service to all city residents.

"This is a case where one size does not fit all," Rubenstein said. "While it might be appropriate to use a semiautomatic weapon in a field in a rural area, it is not in a city like Cincinnati," Rubenstein said.

E-mail dklepal@enquirer.com