Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

NodeBB

  1. Home
  2. Legal & Legislative
  3. Ohio Lets Gun Owners Bill Back

Ohio Lets Gun Owners Bill Back

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Legal & Legislative
handbooklegislative
1 Posts 1 Posters 2.5k Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • A Offline
    A Offline
    admin
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    Ohio just passed something worth watching — the state Senate voted to let residents collect legal fees from local governments when a court finds a local gun ordinance unconstitutional or in conflict with state preemption law.

    That last part matters. Preemption isn't new in Ohio or here in Idaho. What's new is giving it actual teeth.

    "Preemption laws already exist in Ohio — and in Idaho, for that matter. The problem has always been enforcement. A city passes a magazine ban or storage mandate that clearly violates state preemption. A resident wants to challenge it. Attorney fees run $10,000–$50,000 or more. Most people walk away. The ordinance stays on the books."

    That's the gap nobody talks about. The law says the city can't do it. The city does it anyway. You'd be right in court — and broke getting there. Most people don't have $30k sitting around to prove a point, even a correct one.

    "This isn't really about winning lawsuits — it's about deterrence. If Columbus or Cleveland knows they'll be writing a check every time an unconstitutional ordinance gets challenged, the calculation on passing one changes before it ever reaches a vote."

    This is the part that actually changes behavior. Fee-shifting flips the risk. Now the city attorney has to think about what happens when they lose — not just whether they can outlast a challenger financially.

    Idaho's preemption is solid on paper. But there's no equivalent fee-shifting mechanism here. If Ohio's version holds up and produces results, don't be surprised if ISAA or similar groups start pushing for the same language in the next session.

    Have you ever run into a local ordinance in Idaho — city, county, park district, whatever — that seemed to conflict with state preemption? Curious whether that's actually happening on the ground here or if it's more of a theoretical problem so far.


    Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

    1 Reply Last reply
    0

    Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

    Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

    With your input, this post could be even better 💗

    Register Login
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes


    • Login

    • Don't have an account? Register

    • Login or register to search.
    Powered by NodeBB Contributors
    • First post
      Last post
    0
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • World
    • Users
    • Groups