Gun prohibitions in city parks have always struck me as stupid. If I can walk straight into the park, there's no way to secure said park, which means anyone who wants to break the law and carry in violation of the ban will do so without anything to stop them. Couple that with, say, a preemption law, and you've got a local government that is filled with people who have gotten pretty high on their own supply.
Like the . . . good people running Akron, Ohio.
See, they've decided that a gun ban in a park is a brilliant idea. They also failed to account for literally anything, and now they're being sued for overstepping their authority.
A gun prohibition on city property during the Akron City Festival on the weekend of Sept. 5 and 6 has prompted a Cuyahoga Falls resident to sue the city.
Thomas Jakupca filed his original civil complaint with the Summit County Clerk of Courts on Sept. 4, one day before the festival began, as an "emergency action for declaratory and injunctive relief," alleging the city of Akron violated Ohio's preemption laws. The lawsuit arises "from the City of Akron's unlawful prohibition on the possession of firearms within the outdoor grounds of the 2026 Akron City Festival at Lock 3 Park — a prohibition that is expressly preempted by, and irreconcilable with, Ohio Revised Code § 9.68."
The festival was held primarily on the grounds of the Summit County Public Library.
...
The Summit County court system failed to act prior to the festival, so Jakupca on Sept. 8 filed an amended complaint "arising from two related unlawful restrictions on the exercise of firearm rights on the outdoor grounds of Lock 3 Park," which is a city-owned, open-air public venue: a blanket prohibition on the possession of firearms posted in connection with the festival and a permanent, standing prohibition on "weapons of any kind" posted on official city of Akron signage at Lock 3 Park, which applies to all visitors at all times, independent of any festival or temporary event.
Jakupca's complaint (Case No. CV-2026-09-3900) points out that both prohibitions violate Ohio's preemption laws. Although the festival has since concluded, his claim for "declaratory relief and for recovery of reasonable expenses arising from both the festival prohibition and the independently permanent park signage preserve the court's jurisdiction and his standing in bringing the case.
Former Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost issued an opinion last year stating that cities like Akron are, in fact, bound by the preemption law, and the reality is that the city screwed up.
Now, I don't live in Akron, but based on what pictures of the venue show me and what Google Maps indicates about the park itself, there's really no way to control who comes in and out of the park. That means that a gun prohibition can't be meaningfully enforced except through voluntary compliance, and by "voluntary," I simply mean that you decided not to risk jail, as opposed to those who decide differently.
Even without preemption, such a prohibition is questionable. How sensitive can a place be if there's absolutely no attempt at security, up to and including such groundbreaking technology as doors or a gate?
I hope Jakupca's lawsuit does everything he intends, but we need to go beyond this. We need firmer rules for what various levels of government can consider "sensitive places" or not. That definition was meant to be narrow, but because it's clear that no one can look at the Bruen decision and realize that maybe they shouldn't make everything "sensitive," we need narrower guidance.
Because there's always some twerp in the classroom that screws it up for everyone. This time, though, the "twerp" is going to accidentally get everyone free ice cream instead.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member