Given that language, it may come as a surprise that even though Yost believes the ordinances contradict state law, the AG is siding with Columbus when it comes to their ability to appeal that preliminary injunction. 

Columbus argues that they have a right to appeal any injunction that prevents a law from being enforced.

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office is backing Columbus on this argument, arguing that governments can appeal when there is "irreparable harm" caused by a pause in the enforcement of laws.

This is the same argument that the AG's team has made on several high-profile occasions, such as when a Cincinnati judge temporarily blocked — which then led to permanently — the six-week abortion ban from going into effect.

The Buckeye Institute, which is helping six anonymous gun owners, has argued that this ordinance is unconstitutional and that a preliminary injunction only stops something illegal from going into effect. The AG's office agrees that Columbus put forward an unconstitutional law, but does back them on the ability to get the injunction dropped.

Again, today's arguments weren't about whether the ordinances in question are valid, but whether the city has the power to appeal an injunction, or if it must wait for a final decision on the merits before launching an appeal. And as much as it pains me to say this, I think Yost and the Columbus officials make a legitimate point... albeit about an illegitimate law. 

I'm not an attorney, but it seems to me that this is boils down to a simple issue of fairness. If the plaintiffs in a particular case are allowed to appeal a judge's decision not to grant an injunction, then why shouldn't the defendants be able to appeal a decision to grant injunctive relief, especially on a temporary basis? At that point the judge has made no final determination based on the merits, even though we might have a good idea where they're eventually going to come down on a particular issue. Being allowed to appeal a lower court decision also doesn't guarantee that an appellate court will side with the city. It simply levels the playing field for both plaintiffs and defendants. 

When filing an amicus brief filed last June, Yost argued that “the rule of law means the same rules for everybody." As the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported at the time, it's mainly been Democrats and champions of progressive causes who have benefitted from the status quo preventing governments from appealing preliminary injunctions, but conservatives have seen some success as well, and not just in Columbus. 

The rules for when government officials can appeal a court order striking down a new law is a major political flashpoint between Republicans and Democrats in Ohio that could determine how lawsuits challenging GOP-passed state laws will play out, including those seeking to enforce the new voter-approved abortion amendment. Left-leaning groups challenging new state laws typically file their lawsuits with courts in big cities, where Democratic leaning voters elect local judges.

A recent example on another subject came in April, when a Republican judge in Franklin County issued a temporary order blocking a new state law that blocks transgender children from getting medical care affirming their gender identity while also banning transgender student athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports. Yost cited the decision in his filing on Tuesday.

Conversely, the Columbus gun ordinance challenge is a relatively rare example of how a Republican-leaning judge can rule favorably on a conservative challenge of an ordinance passed in a Democratic-controlled city, since part of Columbus extends into Delaware County, where Republicans control the county government.

Republican state legislators recently tried to address the issue themselves, when the Ohio Senate passed a bill last month saying that preliminary injunctions are final, appealable orders, but only if they’re appealing a state law. It would have created a double-standard with local ordinances, which would not have been immediately appealable.

The bill stalled before the Ohio House though, since the Senate included the provision in a broader bill that banned non-U.S. citizens from contributing to ballot issue campaigns — a bill the House ended up approving separately in another form.

During today's oral arguments one of the big questions the Court wrestled with was whether it should even be the body to set the rules for appeal, or if that should be left up to the legislature. Either way, the right thing to do is to ensure that, as Yost opined, the rule of law applies to everybody. And in this particular case, that means the city of Columbus should have the right to appeal the lower court decision; a request that should quickly be turned down by the appellate court based on the plain language of Ohio's preemption law.