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