Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray defends Second Amendment rights against cities like Cleveland and Columbus

By Chad D. Baus

As we reported last November, Attorney General Richard Cordray is a co-sponsor on an amicus brief in landmark gun rights case heard earlier today by the United States Supreme Court. The brief, which Cordray's office and its counterpart in Texas led the writing of and which was signed by 38 state attorneys general, argues that these rights should be protected from undue restrictions imposed by state and local governments.

As a Cleveland Plain Dealer story notes today, that puts the State of Ohio at odds with anti-gun city governments in places like Cleveland and Columbus.

From the story:

Cordray's position in support of the Second Amendment right to bear arms could ultimately make it tougher for cities to pass and enforce highly restrictive, local gun-control laws. If the high court agrees with positions taken separately by Corday and the National Rifle Association, it could "handcuff" the ability of Cleveland, Columbus and cities nationwide to respond to gun-related violence, the cities' attorneys contended in a legal filing.

"As a city confronted with safety issues day in, day out, do we have the ability to ultimately do something about it?" asked Cleveland City Attorney Robert Triozzi in a telephone interview Monday.

Cordray says he, too, wants safety, and that Ohio has laws against those who abuse their gun rights. "That's not what this case is about," he said. Rather, it's about how gun rights are applied, and about assuring their even application throughout the nation.

"This case is about constitutional law," he said.

McDonald v. Chicago, which was heard by the Supreme Court this morning at 10:00 a.m., will determine whether Chicago and a suburb, Oak Park, can heavily regulate - i.e. ban - the ownership of guns.

The NRA, and Cordray, want the high court to rule that the Second Amendment applies to states and cities. While that might seem obvious -- most constitutional rights, such as the First Amendment guarantee of free speech and assembly, apply in nearly all cases across the land -- the Second Amendment's primacy has never been established outside of federal cases and federal enclaves.

That's why when the Supreme Court in 2008 struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, the ruling did not extend beyond that federal enclave.

Backers say the broadest interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which among other things imbues citizenship rights and due process of law, should assure that the Second Amendment is a right in all jurisdictions.

"It will settle this significant issue," Cordray said in a phone interview. He noted that over the last two generations, the high court has incorporated nearly all of the Bill of Rights into the broader fabric of society. But not so the Second Amendment.

"It's a nonpartisan issue," said Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA's public affairs director. "This is about freedom, it's about what's in our Bill of Rights, and we think it applies equally to all people regardless of where they live."

The law directors of Cleveland and Columbus, signing another friend-of-the court brief, see it differently. Discussing how the 14th Amendment applies to the Second Amendment is "a very interesting legal issue, but ultimately what we're trying to protect here is our right to decide for ourselves," said Cleveland's Triozzi.

...A U.S. Supreme Court ruling against Chicago's restrictive gun regulations would not mean the end of gun safety laws, said Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence. The court has never said that some regulations are not reasonable; the question has always been their sweep.

But it almost certainly would create even more court challenges on Second Amendment grounds, Hoover said. "That would be the down side," she said. "You would see people challenge it for the sake of challenging it."

The story concludes by noting that Cleveland and Cordray are waiting to see if the Ohio Supreme Court will accept a different case concerning the city's right to regulate firearms. The Ohio legislature tried to remove that right in late 2006, with supporters saying the state needed consistency across local borders rather than a smorgasbord of local gun regulations.

Cordray defended the legislature's position, and asked the Ohio Supreme Court to weigh in after a state appeals court ruled in Cleveland's favor.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.

Related Stories:
Cleveland refuses to obey state law ... refuses to obey the courts ... and spits on the Constitution. And we're fighting back!

Buckeye Firearms Foundation sues Cleveland to stop enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws