The City Council in Columbus, Ohio, apparently does not believe in the rule of law as this week it enacted a package of gun control measures in direct violation of the state’s preemption statute.
Under that preemption statute, only the Legislature has the power to regulate firearms.
Among the provisions the City Council approved, is a ban on magazines that hold more than 30 rounds of ammunition, arbitrary storage requirements, and tougher penalties for straw purchasers.
The council members voted unanimously to approve the package, despite the fact that they’re keenly aware that it’s beyond their purview as public servants to do so and that it’s likely to precipitate legal challenges.
“For me, this is worth the risk. Protecting our residents, protecting our youth is worth the risk of a potential lawsuit,” said councilwoman Shayla D. Favor in an interview with 10 WBNS.
SEE ALSO: Trudeau’s Real Agenda: Ban Legal Firearm Ownership Altogether
“We want to make sure we’re doing everything we can to keep residents safe,” she added.
Of course, it’s worth the risk of a lawsuit because Ms. Favor isn’t footing the bill to fight it in court. The taxpayers are, as the Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA) pointed out.
“City leaders know who is responsible for their spike in violent crime,” said Dean Rieck, Executive Director of BFA in a Tuesday press release. “Why aren’t they using this information to tackle crime directly instead of passing new gun laws criminals won’t follow?
Rieck pointed out that preemption, as it relates to firearms, is settled law in Ohio, and that this issue has been litigated all the way up to the state’s Supreme Court.
“Buckeye Firearms Association will fight Columbus in the court and in the legislature over their renegade ordinances,” he added. “And when the city again loses, they will be forced to explain why they are again wasting time and taxpayer dollars in such a futile and reckless way.”
The package now heads to the desk of Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther, a Democrat, for his signature. Stay tuned for updates.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
There are rules about frivolous lawsuits. There should be rules about podunk politicians that pass laws in violation of state law, which leads to a court battle. Those fighting against them will have to put up the cash for the lawyer they will need, as their city will foot the bill for the government employee lawyer and judge on their payroll 24/7/365, with benefits and a retirement plan with nothing better to do than defend the illegal law.
Illegal unconstitutional laws are not laws that are enforceable. Everyone must defy and ignore them.
Pretty evident the city council is a bunch of stupid liberal criminals.
The taxpayers are MORONS for having these Progressive liberal politicians representing them!
TAX DOLLARS 💸 WASTED!!!
This is outrageous,if they want to stop gun violence why are some states defunding law inforcement agencies & releasing prisoners because of being over crowded. Some of the super rich are pouring money into stopping legal guns,they could put that money to help build strong modern prisons & help fund law informant. If challenged we could see if the rich want to realy stop crime. Criminals realy hope that legal guns are stopped.
What’s gun violence? It’s Impossible for an inanimate object (Gun) to be violent, “Criminal Violence” on the other hand is the elephant in the room! Mass shootings will never be solved blaming it on guns.
What’s gun violence???
If there is a law that states they can not do this, why are there not charges brought against those on council for breaking the law? Enough with having to have lawsuits against illegal or unconstitutional laws with no consequences. If I break a federal, state or city law I get fined and/or arrested. We need the same thing for those passing illegal laws.
CHARGE THE WHOLE BUNCH WITH VIOLATION OF LAW AND PROSECUTE!!!
“We don’t need YOUR laws. We need what WE want. Viva La Revolucion!”
Couterclaim their socks off for deprivation of rights under color of law via:
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law
42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights
Let’s be fair here; I agree that trying to contravene state law with a local law is not following the “rule of law.” But how about county Sheriffs who say they will not uphold their oath of office and follow statewide gun laws? Just askin’. It is not up to them to decide which laws to follow.
The difference is that ALL public servants take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution. Sheriff’s that refuse to abide by unconstitutional laws are upholding that oath.
So when two laws are in conflict, the sheriff can’t decide to follow the one that’s written into the Constitution? Or are you saying they should immediately enforce a fresh law of dubious constitutionality passed by a bunch of legislators who have shown that they will simply pass anything they wish and let the courts sort out the question of whether they violated the rights of the people they pretend to serve?
Actually it is up to those sheriffs not to follow laws that are unconstitutional. These people should be removed from office and prosecuted
And You are a prime example of the problem with the GOP in DC.
“Let’s be fair here.”
So, you want to “be fair” when the other side fights dirty? You’re a loser, literally!
The Progressive-Socialists will not go away and will never stop until they’ve won. We’ll see if you still want to “be fair” after they tear-up the Constitution and confiscate your guns. Idiot.
Vee ver jusst followink orders.
Is that about right?
So restrict the good guy. But they think the bad guys are not going to use 30-40-60 rounds magazines because the law says so …idiots
How about the people vote republican next time and all crime will go away
“How about the people vote republican next time and all crime will go away.”
– and I have a some nice wooded acreage with a trout stream and cozy log cabin……… on Saturn!
CITY COUNCIL … BWAA HHHAAAAA HHHAAAA !!!
You, and others, better start taking this sh-t seriously.