More on Cleveland Restrictions

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.

Eugene Volokh writes:

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.

4 thoughts on “More on Cleveland Restrictions”

  1. I can’t get a handle on whether the lack of understanding by anti-gun wackos is ignorance or pure stupidity. A good portion of the same crowd wouldn’t think twice about having a doctor stick a knife in the back of the neck of a partially born child to keep from inconveniencing their precious lifestyle.

  2. It’s mostly willful stupidity. Usually they don’t own guns, never interacted with them, and so just assume they are bad, because people and the media tell them they are. It’s an emotional gut reaction, and those don’t need a lot of facts for people to run with them.

    Most of the media swim in that pool, so the reporting tends to reflect it.

  3. Ya know Nadnerbus,

    You are correct in saying: “Usually they don’t own guns, never interacted with them, and so just assume they are bad, because people and the media tell them they are.”

    My 66-year old sister’s in that catagory. An upstanding member of the community and decent citizen, but she never held a gun in her life and believes that if guns were banned ALL violence would cease.

    As a gun owner and believer in the 2nd ammendment you can bet we’re had some pretty heated debates.

    When I ask her to give me proof of her anti-gun agenda she generally replies: “I read about those things in the MSM….The NY Times or Time magazine. Or I saw a program on CBS, NBC or PBS.

    I’ve given up arguing. It just ain’t worth the effort. Besides I’m her only heir and she’s got some bucks!!

  4. In this last year there was a prominent psychological study (I posted it here some time back), proving that ignorance with committed sentiment or agenda behind it will not be swayed by facts. Just the opposite, when faced with contradicting evidence, these willfully ignorant become more entrenched in their beliefs, and education or social status seems to have no bearing on the matter. This is the purest form of stupidity I can think of.

    I expect that reporter doesn’t even know what a “sawed-off” shotgun is, but you know, it’s gotta be bad. Anyway, it’s nice to see more and more level-headed judges speaking up.

Comments are closed.