City of Cincinnati: "The laws, like taxes, are for the little people"

Editor's Note: The Cincinnati Enquirer has published an edited version of this op-ed ed, entitled "City should conform to law on concealed carry".

By Jeff Riley

It appears that the City of Cincinnati, through their inaction, has updated and revised Leona's original phrase.

The law is for you to obey, but not for them.

In my first article on this subject, I detailed my interactions with the City of Cincinnati and their refusal to remove "No Firearms" signs from City Parks. My odyssey began soon after Sub. HB347 became law in March 2007. After working for months to educate the City of the changes in the law, it seems all to have been in vain.

You see, the City didn't need me to inform them about the changes in the law; they knew it the entire time. In fact, they were following the proposed changes in the law prior to HB347 and acknowledged Statewide preemption in a December 2006 memo written by City Manager Milton R. Dohoney Jr. to City Council and the Mayor! In the memo Manager Dohoney correctly states:

Enactment of that bill will preempt most of the City' authority to protect public safety insofar as firearm regulation is concerned. Subject to narrow zoning exceptions, the bill preempts local authority to regulate the ownership, possession, purchase, transport, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and the ammunition. The bill further requires that a court award costs and attorney fees to any person who prevails in a challenge to a local ordinance or regulation that conflicts with state or federal law.

The Mayor acknowledged the reality of preemption in a December 13th, 2006 Cincinnati Enquirer article, admitting that the new law invalidates City firearms ordinances:

Mayor Mark Mallory, a state legislator for 10 years, said he is discouraged by the Ohio General Assembly's vote against home rule.

Cincinnati's ban on assault weapons was reinstated Friday by the Ohio Supreme Court after more than two years of court appeals. The local ban will be unenforceable, again, March 13, meaning that residents can own military-style, semiautomatic weapons with magazines that hold dozens of bullets.

"We had a court ruling which upheld the concept that the city of Cincinnati was...well within its rights" to enforce an assault weapons ban, Mallory said. "The legislature set that ruling on its ear ... or all of the legislative talk about local control, we continue to see examples of the legislature saying, 'No, we can't decide this at the local level.' It's very disappointing."

When viewing Manager Dohoney's memo, which is available on the City website, you will notice something else. Indeed, this is how the City of Cincinnati views gun ownership:

The bill advances the overbroad assertion that there is a fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms.

Apparently the City is joining that exclusive group "The Only Ones" as in "We are the Only Ones who should be allowed to own firearms". Google the phrase "Only Ones" or "Mayors Against Guns" and you can see other members of this nefarious group such as Mayor Bloomberg, the gun-grabbing Mayor of New York City.

Apparently the City Manager has never heard of the State of Ohio
Constitution which states unequivocally:

Article I, Section 1.04

The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

So let's review:

The State of Ohio Constitution recognizes the individual right to own firearms, check.

The State of Ohio through enactment of Sub. HB347 specifically grants Statewide preemption through ORC 9.68, check.

The City of Cincinnati, fully aware and recognizing Statewide preemption, is still refusing to update municipal code/park rules and remove "No Firearms" signs, FAIL!!!!!!

In a phone conversation with the City Solicitor's office, Ms. Zimmer reiterated that she believes that lawful carry of a handgun for self-defense is legal, but disagrees that the signs should be revised to remove firearms prohibition. This she believes is due to the inclusion of the phrase "Unless authorized by permit or other authorized by law" disclaimer appearing on the signs.

However, not only does this language appear only on the Fountain Square sign (a check of other City Parks revealed this language is missing), but this language also appears on signs designed by statute for the specific purpose of banning concealed carry in certain places under state law.

What's more, when one digs a bit further, we see that the municipal code does not contain the supposed exemption Zimmer claims exists in Fountain Park for CHL-holders. From the City of Cincinnati Municipal Code, Rules of the Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Cincinnati:

Rule 10. Weapons

No person shall carry or discharge firearms, slings, bows, rockets, missiles, projectiles, explosives, volatile liquids, or other devices by which persons, animals, or birds may be injured or frightened, and no one shall throw stones or other dangerous missiles, devices and objects on park property. (PR Rule 11; enacted by Resolution of Feb. 4, 1932; renumbered to Rule 10,
Apr. 6, 1978)

In not removing or revising the signs, the City is trying to have it both ways, claiming to be in compliance with the law, yet retaining the language necessary to entrap innocent law-abiding citizens if the City chooses to enforce the now defunct law. The mere presence of the word firearms on the sign leaves the impression that City can author its own laws to regulate the carry of firearms, *which they cannot*, under the current law. It has the chilling effect in that law-abiding citizens who are unsure as to the legality of carry in City Parks, will not do so, rendering them defenseless and subject to predatory criminals. It also seeks to deprive them a civil right guaranteed by both State law and the State of Ohio Constitution. It will also cause confusion and waste valuable Police resources and time in responding to calls for "Man with a gun" in City Parks.

I am aware, as Ms. Zimmer stated that, there is a pending Ohio Supreme Court Case (OFCC Inc. v. City of Clyde), currently before the Court dealing with the legality of municipal firearms bans in local/city parks. The case is on appeal and stems from a ban enacted *prior* to HB347 granting statewide preemption of firearm laws. As the City of Cincinnati is not a party to that case, nor was an injunction issued staying the current law, ORC 9.68, this is not relevant. If the City disagrees, they can sue the State of Ohio or seek injunctive relief, but until then the City is bound by the law as it is currently written.

When will the City of Cincinnati become law-abiding member of our community instead of a lawbreaker? When will they recognize, as inscribed on the north side of the Hamilton County Courthouse, "That the Commonwealth May have a Government of Laws, and Not of Men." What will it take to get them to do what is right? Will it take an
illegal arrest of law-abiding citizens and resultant court case?

Please use the contact list below to voice your concerns and let the City hear your voice.

• City Manager Dohoney
  513 352 3243
  [email protected]
• Chief of Police Thomas Streicher
  513 352-3536
  [email protected]
• Leslie Ghiz, Vice Chair Law and Public Safety Committee
  (513) 352-3344
  [email protected]
• John Cranley, member Law and Public Safety Committee
  (513) 352-5303
  [email protected]
• Patricia M. King, Interim City Solicitor
  352-3334
• Richard Ganulin, Chief Supervising Attorney
  352-3329

Jeff Riley is a Southwest Ohio volunteer for Buckeye Firearms Association.