City of Strongsville, OH bans gun sales in homes

By Jim Irvine

The City of Strongsville, Ohio has recently passed a new ordinance that bans the selling of any firearms, or part of a firearm or ammunition, or manufacture of any of the above in areas that are zoned residential. The ordinance reads in part:

1252.36 Prohibited uses.

Nothwithstanding (sic) anything in this Chapter 1252 to the contrary, the sale or manufacture for sale of a firearm, firearm components, deadly weapons, ammunition for a firearm, explosive is prohibited in all Residential Districts.

(Click here to read the entire ordinance)

So under this ordinance, which was sponsored by Mayor Tom Perciak and Councilman Ray Haseley, I could not sell a friend a gun in his house, or my house. We will be required to go down to the local grocery store, or a playground parking lot, or maybe even in front of city hall to do the transaction, because none of those areas are "residential districts."

We need to start by understanding that because this is a zoning issue, it is not preempted by Sec 9.68 that HB347 enacted to establish uniform firearm laws throughout the state.

In the North Royalton/ Strongsville Sun Star's coverage, Councilman Haseley is quoted as saying, "We wanted to put some teeth into the legislation and we don't want that type of thing being sold out of homes." (emphasis added)

Law Director Ken Kraus is quoted in the Sun Star's article as saying, "There haven't been any incidents created, like excessive parking, traffic or safety issues, but we just thought in reviewing our ordinances that we should close that loophole for the future." (emphasis added)

"Loophole" for "those kinds of things"?

So we have an anti-gun ordinance proposed by a Mayor who does not return a phone call, and quotes from a city council member and the law director that contain the code words of the anti-freedom zealots. On the surface, is sure looks like a pure case of anti-gun nut cases. But as this is my town and I know some of these people, I found it hard to believe they were really that anti-American.

Mr. Perciak did not return my calls asking for comments. Councilman Haseley, Council President Michael J. Gallagher, and law director Ken Kraus all returned my calls. In discussions with them there was a common theme; we are not trying to single out guns or gun owners or to prevent the lawful sale of property between private individuals. Kraus stated that it was about, "commercial activity in a residential area." Nothing more, they claim.

We can all agree with that sentiment. None of us wants to live beside a noisy factory. A neighbor running a business that creates noise and traffic that can be real safety issues with children. That is why we zone some areas for residential and others areas for farming, or commercial, or manufacturing. It makes good sense. In that sense, this would be a good move.

Both council members and the law director sounded another common theme. They all claimed that they were addressing a real issue that was creating a problem in our city. There were complaints from neighbors about commercial traffic in residential neighborhoods. They also mentioned that they were not singling out guns, but rather the commercial activity.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I tend to believe people. It appeared to me that this was a case of ignorance on our issue, or sloppy drafting, but certainly not some vendetta against gun owners, in spite of the very offending language they just passed.

But then the Sun Star story came out and caused a little more concern.

"There hasn't been a major problem, but we very narrowly limit our home occupations in our code, and we just felt that it would be better in the world we live in not to have firearms being sold in residential areas -- just from a safety standpoint," Law Director Ken Kraus said.

Kraus emphasized there haven't been any issues that precipitated the ordinance's passage.

"There haven't been any incidents created, like excessive parking, traffic or safety issues, but we just thought in reviewing our ordinances that we should close that loophole for the future," he said.

So the quotes in the paper directly contradict what they all told me. So, what is the truth? The truth is that I don't know what the truth is. It will take more time to find out why this ordinance was introduced and passed, and if the council would be open to amending it to accomplish their stated goal of limiting commercial activity in residential areas without discriminating against private gun owners.

Strongsville has a section of code dealing with home businesses.

Section 1252.03 (c) Home Occupations. Gainful home occupations may be permitted in certain Residential Districts including home crafts such as baking, dressmaking, millinery, weaving, home decorating, services such as repairing furniture and radios, sharpening tools; office space of businesses or services such as real estate, selling or taking orders for merchandise, contracting work, provided:

(1) Only members of the family residing within the dwelling shall work therein;

(2) The occupation is conducted wholly within a building and the space used for production and sale does not occupy more than twenty-five percent of the floor area of a detached building;

(3) No merchandise shall be sold except that which is produced or processed on the premises;

(4) No mechanical equipment shall be used which will create any dust, noise, odors, glare, vibrations or electrical disturbances beyond the lot;

(5) The residential character of the dwelling exterior or accessory building shall not be changed; and

(6) Trucks or other mobile equipment shall not be parked overnight in driveways or open yards, and the occupations do not attract any greater number of automobiles to the premise than permitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 1270.05 of this Zoning Code.

It seems to me that if a gun can be sold within the confines of the above section, than it should not be treated any different that selling crafts or pies, except of course that firearm rights are protected by our Second Amendment and the Ohio Constitution. Further, "sharpening tools" is permitted and it would seem that gun repair could also be permitted, except if the repair required a new part, such as a spring or grip, the sale of which is now banned.

Buckeye Firearms Association routinely takes calls from State Legislators and other officials on firearms issues. They recognize us as a valuable resource and we welcome the opportunity to work with them to resolve problems and address real issues. The learning is a two way street and together we have made great progress in Ohio's firearms laws.

It is frustrating that any city council in Ohio would set out to pass a firearm ordinance without ever consulting with Buckeye Firearms Association, especially when its Chairman resides in that very city. This illustrates why it is important for legislators at all levels of government to work with groups familiar with various issues before enacting legislation that could have serious consequences while doing no public good.

Jim Irvine is the Buckeye Firearms Association Chairman, and the host of Firearms Forum, Ohio's first talk radio show about guns and gun rights.