Ohio has had preemption for a while now, which is good. However, not everyone is thrilled by that. Shocking, I know. It's almost like anti-gunners think local control is good right up until a locality doesn't want to have a gun control law.
Now, though, there are dueling bills in the legislature taking very opposite approaches to dealing with the preemption status quo.
Yes, one of them is very bad.
The state’s nearly 20-year-old firearm preemption law, which generally prevents local governments from adopting regulations that go beyond Ohio law, is once again under review.
With two rival proposals currently under consideration at the Statehouse, municipalities could either regain broad authority over gun laws or face steeper financial consequences for trying to exercise it. At its core, the dispute comes down to who should have the final say: the General Assembly or Ohio communities responding to their distinct public safety needs.
Senate Bill 237 would repeal the law that largely prevents cities, counties and other local governments from setting their own rules for firearms and knives. Sponsored by Democratic Sens. Hearcel Craig of Columbus and Cincinnati’s Catherine Ingram, the legislation received its first hearing last month before the Senate Armed Services, Veterans Affairs and Public Safety Committee.
Representatives from Ohio's two largest cities don't like preemption? Yeah, I'm totally floored.
Of course, if they're allowed to set their own rules for guns, they'll immediately issue a number of bans, increase the number of places that are off-limits for firearm carry, and otherwise try their damnedest to make their cities as hostile toward people exercising their Second Amendment rights as they think they can get away with.
And all of those laws will be misdemeanors, which means that even if it punishes people—many of whom aren't being properly punished by the courts already—it'll be a trivial punishment that does nothing to discourage criminals. It won't even be enough to make them prohibited from buying a gun in and of itself.
But that's not the point, is it? It's not about the criminals so much as it's about making it so people like you and me can't carry a firearm.
Fortunately, that's far from the only bill up for consideration.
Earlier this year, the state Senate passed Senate Bill 278, which is now in the House. This one seeks to impose penalties on cities that violate preemption.
Under Senate Bill 278, Ohio cities and towns can be sued for expanded damages for their gun control ordinances, if those ordinances are stricter than what is on the books statewide. It would add just five words, “including punitive or exemplary damages,” to Ohio’s Revised Code, although it does not define punitive or exemplary damages.
“If anything, our citizens should feel emboldened to overturn these unlawful regulations, without having to face the financial burden of doing what is right,” Sen. Terry Johnson (R-McDermott) testified Wednesday.
Of course, Democrats hate this bill.
With two dueling bills in the legislature, I can't help but wonder what the hell these two lawmakers are trying to pull. Do they really think that the same Senate that passed a bill meant to put some teeth into the state's preemption law would then essentially overturn preemption? Really?
But that's not what's happening. What's happening is that the two felt like the people in Columbus and Cincinnati needed to be reminded that they're good little anti-gunners and will introduce doomed legislation just to send the signals back home, all while wasting everyone's time with measures they know aren't going to go anywhere.
And good thing, too, for all the reasons I outlined above.
Ohio isn't a good place for gun control to try and take hold. Not even a Republican governor could make it happen. There's no way a couple of big-city Democrats are going to pull it off.
