Here’s a little more on the story about the Ohio Supreme Court ruling that the city of Cleveland’s gun restrictions violated state law.
Two of the seven Justices dissented, but I find it hard to understand their argument. They reasoned, quoting an earlier case, that “in order for … a conflict to arise, the state statute must positively permit what the ordinance prohibits, or vice versa, regardless of the extent of state regulation concerning the same object,” and concluded that there was no conflict warranting preemption because “the Cleveland ordinances do not conflict with R.C. 9.68, because they does not permit something that the statute forbids or vice versa.” But how could this be so?
Which demonstrates that judges matter. 28% didn’t think that Cleveland’s restrictions conflicted with state law despite seemingly clear evidence to the contrary. If it had been three dissenters instead of two, suddenly Cleveland’s gun owners would be in a position where a flip by one person could change everything.
A New York Times story on the decision notes that outgoing Attorney General Richard Cordray (a Democrat) supported the decision. It also includes:
Ohio bans some assault weapons, like sawed-off shotguns, but Cleveland banned a broader array. [emphasis Murdoc’s]
So, in which states is a “sawed-off assault shotgun” legal?
As a commenter on Volokh noted:
Glad they’re putting their most knowledgeable reporter on the story.
Yeah, but in New York you almost have to be criminal to be allowed to carry a gun.