CLEVELAND’S MAYOR BELIEVES OHIO’S GUN LAWS ARE TOO LAX. HE WANTS TO MAKE HIS OWN.

PART 1

The antigun groups and their political allies in Congress and in State Legislatures across the Country are continually coming up with new strategies to undermine the Second Amendment. Among them is this one: ignore laws you don’t like. Of all the strategies they employ to undermine the Second Amendment, this one, perhaps, is the most disturbing. Why? For this reason: the United States is a Country that is ruled by laws, not men. At least it is supposed to be. Once the “Rule of Law” is cast aside, despotism takes over. Case in point: The City of Cleveland is at war with the Ohio Legislature and the U.S. Supreme Court. The City of Cleveland does not like Ohio’s concealed carry law. The City of Cleveland does not like the Supreme Court’s ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. So, what does the City of Cleveland do? The City pretends that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller doesn’t apply to the City. The City of Cleveland pretends that, notwithstanding Ohio’s concealed carry law, the City may enact restrictive gun ordinances that undercut the State Legislature’s enactments.

In the Editorial Section of the July 20th edition of The Plain Dealer – Cleveland’s mouthpiece for the antigun movement and for the City’s Mayor, Frank Jackson – there is a piece titled, “Provocative Cleveland legislation addresses local firearms violence.” This particular article – so the editorial board tells us – is part of the board’s “Smoking Gun series.” The purpose of the series is to keep a running tally of gun deaths, to quantify the impact of gun violence throughout the county, so the editorial board says. Well, isn’t that nice? It’s critical for the newspaper’s readers to know that a psychopath or lunatic murdered a person with a gun. But, how many homicides were attributed to some other means? The editorial board doesn’t say. Nor does the editorial board of The Plain Dealer tally the number of lives saved through the presence of a gun. The editorial board stresses one set of statistics to the exclusion of others. So, the newspaper has an agenda, and that agenda isn’t one focused on preserving America’s Second Amendment. The newspaper, though, would deny that.

In response to one reader’s sarcastic comment as to how the cesspool of Cleveland might be cleaned up, the newspaper points to the current Mayor’s list of “provocative” but supposed “necessary package of legislation.”

“The proposed ordinances would:
• Require felons who committed crimes with firearms to register with the city Department of Public Safety.
• Require the safe and secure storage of firearms away from minors and prohibit the acquisition of more than one firearm within a 90-day period.
• Prohibit the possession or use of a firearm while intoxicated.
• Prohibit carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.
• Prohibit possession of a BB gun, pellet gun, knife, brass knuckles or sword in a public place.
• Prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm without reporting it to the police.
• Prohibit destroying the serial number and other identifiers on a weapon.
• Prohibit the sale of facsimile firearms.
• Prohibit the sale or possession of slingshots and pea shooters.
• Prohibit the possession or use of stench bombs.”

After reciting this inane list of hoped for City ordinances, The Plain Dealer adds, “these common-sense recommendations do not violate the Second Amendment yet they have already triggered a backlash from activists.” Oh really!

You might wonder at the audacity of the destroyers of our inalienable right to keep and bear arms to sanctify their strategy of destruction, with the ludicrous meme – “common-sense recommendations” – and the ever obligatory tagline, “but of course we do not intend to violate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” – as if in the mere saying – it is so. Better it would be were the editorial board simply to keep its mouth shut. For, it is bad enough to work to destroy our Bill of Rights. But, it’s insulting to do so with a smile, rehashing the same tiresome lines, dictated by the puppet masters who treat the American Public as if it were a collection of dunderheads.

Let’s take a look at these so-called common-sense recommendations. There are issues, some obvious, some, perhaps, less so, but they are all troublesome.

Require felons who committed crimes with firearms to register with the city Department of Public Safety.
1) So such felons are to be treated like sex offenders.
2) Suppose present gun violation infractions are rewritten and then upgraded to felonies. Do you see a problem? We do. Suddenly, any otherwise law-abiding citizen who commits an infraction with a gun has now committed a felony and is required to register with the Department of Public Safety for life. That person’s life shall become a living hell, hounded by the Department, and demoted to the status of a second-class citizen for life.
3) The costs of keeping tabs on these “felons” would be enormous and record-keeping would be an administrative nightmare.

Require the safe and secure storage of firearms away from minors and prohibit the acquisition of more than one firearm within a 90-day period.
1) Doesn’t this sound like the NY SAFE Act?
2) Safe and secure storage of firearms is a matter of common sense and doesn’t require a “Big Brother” to monitor one’s actions.
3) How would the City know the manner in which a person secures firearms other than by violating the Fourth Amendment Prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and inspecting his or her house or place of business? Would this City Ordinance entail mandatory police inspections, in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment? Probably. Might this not lead to the requirement to purchase gun locks and/or safes? Undoubtedly. And, if so, where would this all end? Perhaps, gun owners would be required to take out special insurance. But, then, just owning and possessing a firearm could become a very expensive proposition, making the ownership and possession of guns cost-prohibitive for many. And, the City would certainly like for that to happen. 
4) Why must firearms acquisitions be limited to one every 90 days? This is completely arbitrary. Unless the City had reason to suspect a particular person was a gun runner, there is no reason to arbitrarily limit acquisition of firearms to any particular number.
5) Limiting firearms acquisitions interferes with business. But, perhaps that, too, is the City’s objective.

Prohibit the possession or use of a firearm while intoxicated.
1) Straightforwardly, no one should be using a firearm if he isn’t in control of his faculties. Still, this is already covered by State Law: Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.15. So, why would the Mayor wish to add a City Ordinance when a State Statute already exists, prohibiting the possession or use of a firearm while intoxicated?

Prohibit carrying a concealed weapon without a permit.
 1) This is already covered by State Law: Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.125. So, why would the Mayor wish to add a City Ordinance when a State Statute already exists, specifically setting forth the requirements for carrying a handgun concealed?
2) Of course, the proposed ordinance uses the term ‘weapon,’ rather than ‘handgun’ or ‘firearm.’ Is the Mayor of Cleveland proposing that carrying a pocket knife should require a permit?

Prohibit possession of a BB gun, pellet gun, knife, brass knuckles or sword in a public place.
1) Seriously? The issue really goes to criminal intent. For example, if I carry a baseball bat with the intent to commit a crime, I have already violated a State Statute. So, in that regard, this is already covered by State Law: Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.24(A), says, “No person shall possess or have under the person’s control any substance, device, instrument, or article, with the purpose to use it criminally.”
2) So, why would the Mayor wish to add a City Ordinance when a State Statute already exists, and, in fact, is much more meaningful than a proposed City Ordinance that arbitrarily singles out particular items, the carrying of which is ipso facto criminal conduct?

Prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm without reporting it to the police.
1) SHADES OF NY SAFE!
2) A gun that I rightfully possess and own is my private property. Within certain restraints, I should be able to do with a gun what I please. Now, in accordance with State Law, I cannot knowingly sell or give a gun to a felon, since felons cannot own or possess firearms. And, I would be breaking State Law were I to do so. And, I certainly would be remiss were I to knowingly give a gun to a lunatic or a moron. But, why should I have to notify the police of a transfer of a gun to another rational person who isn’t a felon? Under what legal or logical rationale can the City justifiably designate the Police as a “BIG BROTHER” over a law-abiding citizen?
3) The administrative costs would likely be considerable.
4) Ohio, unlike New York, and a few other jurisdictions, does not license ownership and possession of firearms. Possession of firearms in Ohio is a Right, not a Privilege. If this proposition becomes a City ordinance, Cleveland would be treading a slippery slope toward firearms licensing and registration. This, of course, is what the Mayor of Cleveland and other antigun zealots undoubtedly want.
5)Perhaps, most importantly, and, as noted in point “2” above, Ohio State Law already presently prohibits the transfer of a firearm to specific individuals, most notably, felons. Ohio State Law Section 2923.20(A)(1) sets forth, “No person shall: Recklessly sell, lend, give, or furnish any firearm to any person prohibited by section 2923.13 {person under disability} or 2923.15 {intoxicated person} of the Revised Code from acquiring or using any firearm, or recklessly sell, lend, give, or furnish any dangerous ordnance to any person prohibited by section 2923.13, 2923.15, or 2923.17 of the Revised Code from acquiring or using any dangerous ordnance.” Mayor Jackson’s proposed ordinance adds a requirement that transcends State Law, and THAT, the City isn’t permitted to do, as we shall explain in the second part of this Article.

Prohibit destroying the serial number and other identifiers on a weapon.
1) This is already covered by State Law: Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.201. So, why would the Mayor wish to add a City Ordinance when a State Statute already exists, prohibiting the destruction of a firearm’s serial number or other identification.

Prohibit the sale of facsimile firearms.
1) Really?
2) What is considered a facsimile firearm? A toy cap pistol that may superficially look like a single action revolver? Would this mean that squirt guns become illegal in Cleveland? If so, is the Mayor countenancing that youngsters should not play with toy guns? So, what constitutes a facsimile? Is the Mayor referring to a true replica of a firearm? If so, even New York, with its draconian firearms laws, does allow possession of replica firearms and defines them with particularity. Is there something else going on here?

Prohibit the sale or possession of slingshots and pea shooters.
1) Honestly?
2) How about prohibiting the sale of baseball bats, or requiring the licensing for their purchase? How about prohibiting the sale of boomerangs and Frisbee flying disks? How about prohibiting the sale of “peas” or any pea shaped/sized object. After all these things might be ammo for pea shooters!

Prohibit the possession or use of stench bombs.
1) Stench bombs? Really?
2) The State of Ohio already prohibits the possession of dangerous ordnance, such as dynamite, unless a party falls under a specific exemption. The prohibition is codified in Ohio Revised Code Section 2923.17. Stench bombs are not classified as dangerous ordnance by the State. If the City of Cleveland intends to so classify stench bombs as deadly ordinance, then it is redefining State Law to include an item in that category that the Ohio State Legislature has specifically not included. And, if the City of Cleveland does not intend to classify stench bombs as dangerous ordnance, then what is the rationale for prohibiting such things at all? Moreover, if the City of Cleveland can legally prohibit a citizen from possessing any item the City wishes, then any and every conceivable object is fair game for prohibition. The Ohio State Legislature itself would not go so far as to give itself the power to ban anything and everything at the slightest whim. Yet, the City of Cleveland would have the audacity to do just that.

Beyond the obvious arguments to be drawn against each one of these proposed City of Cleveland ordinances, there is another and more pressing argument to be made and it is one that cuts across the very idea of implementing a City ordinance impacting weapons generally and firearms specifically, anywhere in Ohio. It has to do with the manner in which laws operate in Ohio. The Mayor, apparently, either doesn’t care or hasn’t a clue how the gun laws governing the State of Ohio operate.

In the next Article, to be posted shortly, we lay out why the Mayor’s proposed weapons’ ordinances are dead in the water even prior to an attempt to implement them.