Columbus Ohio Bump Stock Ban Restraining Order Preemption
Previous Post
Next Post

Ohio has a preemption law that prohibits cities from enacting more stringent gun controls than anything that exists at the state level. That’s there to prevent creation of a patchwork of laws from being enacted forcing law-abiding gun owners to know the laws in every city in the state they may enter.

Without preemption, gun owners in, say, Toledo, would have to know that the laws concerning concealed carry in Cincinnati are different. It would be all too easy to run afoul of them and find yourself behind bars.

But since Parkland, many cities in preemption states have decided to challenge these preemption laws. One way is to lobby for repeal in the state legislature and change the law. Cities in Florida are challenging the Sunshine State’s preemption law in court.

But municipalities in Illinois, Ohio, and a few others have decided to go ahead and violate their states’ preemption laws and make gun rights supporters do something about it.

In Ohio, as in Illinois, gun rights groups (Buckeye Firearms Association and Ohioans for Concealed Carry) did just that. They’ve sued Columbus and Cincinnati over their newly-enacted bump stock bans. And yesterday, a judge issued a temporary restraining order against enforcement of Columbus’s illegal ordinance.

Court of Common Pleas Judge David Cain issued a temporary restraining order on Friday against two city ordinances passed in May: one that banned the possession or use of bump stocks, and another that banned people from carrying a gun while under protection orders or convicted of domestic violence.

Are measures like a bump stock ban and prohibiting people under orders of protection things that Columbusites want? Maybe. But if so, there’s a way to accomplish that under existing law.

They can lobby their state representatives to draft a bill and bring it up for a vote in the Ohio legislature. Instead, the Columbus city council chose to ignore the legislative route — and state law — and enact their own restrictions.

“These lawsuits are not about the bump stock per se, it’s about the rule of law in Ohio,” said Dean Rieke, executive director of Buckeye Firearms, on Friday. “Because it’s our belief that they’re passing these laws as a test to see what they can get away with.”

Bingo. Cities like Deerfield, Cincinnati and Columbus are playing legal chicken. They’re enacting gun control laws and daring someone to step up and challenge them. So far, suits from groups like Guns Save Life, the NRA in Illinois, and the Buckeye Firearms Association and Ohioans for Concealed Carry have stopped enforcement of these clearly illegal gun control laws.

Like Deerfield, Columbus tried to argue their law doesn’t violate the state preemption statute because it doesn’t actually regulate guns, only accessories.

Columubus Attorney Zach Klein says the city is only filling in the gap between state and federal regulations. Klein is expected to move to dismiss the case this week.

That kind of Clintonian parsing of the law didn’t work in Deerfield and it didn’t sway Judge Cain in Ohio, either.

Just as in Deerfield, though, this isn’t over. The Columbus TRO lasts until the date of the next hearing which is set for July 9. Watch this space.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Exactly how is Judge Cain going to do that? As I recall, President Donald Trump by Executive Order passed an Anti Bump Stock Law in March 23rd, 2018. Judge Cain is a “State” Judge, not a “Federal” Judge …

    • No, he didn’t. The ATF is proposing a rule to regulate bump fire stocks like machine guns. The comment period on that expires tomorrow (post coming up later today on that). There is no federal law outlawing or regulating bump fire stocks. For now.

      • Unlikely to be one. We can go conservative judge shopping and get that “regulation” struck down in an afternoon if the ATF is stupid enough to enact it now that the heat is off.

      • DOJ, not the ATF (who aren’t very enthusiastic about being forced to enforce & defend this proposed change, last I heard). Thanks for making one last post on this; I wish it had been more doggedly pursued by you guys and the rest of the gun media biz, since we’re still running across people, daily, who had no clue about the comment period.

        Please include links to the actual comment page for the docket in the article. Also that the rule change likely applies immediately to binary triggers as well as bump stocks. It’s rather plainly written that anything that fires more than one shot “per pull” (that’s the statutory language change they’re attempting without congress) is going to be considered a machinegun conversion or autosear.

        The Hogg crew have been hitting this issue hard in recent weeks as it’s an easy win they’ll be able to take credit for (even though Trump made it clear the public commentary will be ignored). It would be nice if we could flood out their spam bots on the last day, at least.

    • No law has passed out of each house and made it to the presidents desk for signature. The president cannot simply make law. A bill has to be sponsored in either the house of representatives (congress) or the senate. The exception is budget bills. All budgets bills must start in the House of representatives . If a bill passes out of both chambers it goes to the presidents desk.
      Further, the president cannot make law by executive order. The President can only clarify existing law through executive order. What the president did was sign a memorandum instructing the attorney general to regulate the use of bump stocks. That is not the same as passing a law.

    • Colt 6920 bumpfire at the exact same rate as the full-auto version.
      Seems like decent muzzle control.
      Whenever I’ve see people use them they have a big smile when they’re done.
      I can easily name 100 things more stupid that Leftists spend their time on.

  2. The game is about frustrating gun owners, forcing expensive litigation, making statements. There is no individual penalty for localities to spark litigation. Think of it as a form of legally SWATing the public. Just like all the laws established in violation of state preemption. The challenging people/organizations must spend money on law suits (funds that cannot then be spent on lobbying) to challenge the renegade localities, and if the localities lose, the actors do not pay.

    • Public money funds the defense while private money has to fund the challenge. Taxpayers who want to preserve their rights end up funding both sides of the fight. There really needs to be some sort of penalty for politicians who propose and/or vote for unconstitutional laws. Without some sort of skin in the game the politicians just slowly eliminate our rights by attrition.

      In New Yorkistan there are so many bad laws and challenges stacked up in the court system that it’s a losing battle. The dictators in Albany pass 2 new illegal laws for every law that has even gotten started with a challenge in the court system. It’s ridiculous.

      • It is common, and understandable, that people conclude taxpayers pay for both sides of the proposition. However, it is actually only pro-gun advocates who pay twice. Anti-gunners announce through elections they are quite happy to provide financial backing for renegade local politicians.

      • That’s a fact. I have the unpleasant problem of living in Nazzi York. Unfortunately I have responsibilities here and can not move. If I could kick my heels three times , well I can’t so I’m stuck. Fucking leftist , COMMIE , shite , state for ant 2nd amendment loving patriot to have the unpleasantness to live in !!!

  3. Wouldn’t one think this same logic would rationally apply to the states and federal gov as well.

    Hence it being such a pain to travel across states.

    The reason your drivers license is good in all states is the same reason we want carry license to be good in all states…..

    • With the advent of the automobile, there’s a very real argument against the idea of any political entity smaller than a state having the authority to pass criminal laws. The patchwork of laws themselves become a barrier to intrastate commerce, let alone interstate…and while they clause has been been badly abused, promotion of commerce and prevention of its unjust restriction is one of the core jobs of the federal government.

  4. Cincinnati, Cleveland, Cleveland’s suburbs, and a host of other Ohio cities (and other cities in other preemption states) have been doing this for years. They come up with a salt waffle ban, some sort of universal registration scheme, or a mag-cap limit, or refuse to issue CHLs, or even come up with a blanket ban on all semi-auto weapons…then they get bitchslapped by the courts, whine about it for a while, unsuccessfully campaign for “home rule,” and then forget about the last 10 times they were bitchslapped for gunbanning.

  5. Ironicatbest thinks never being able to own a firearm for a misdeamnor( DV) was a Cliton gun grab. The state ironicatbest lived in did not prevent someone from owning a firearm for a DV, however state law vs. federal law. So it does not matter what a state judge declares. Ironicatbest thinks every election people should vote out the old judge and get a different one. Just to keep things all fucked up and disorganised.

  6. Probably, somebody above has already commented on what I’m about to say (read: I admit to skimming the comments…). So, “what he/she said,” and all that….

    It occurs to me that if cities and counties have decided to roll the “do something” dice, so to speak, and draft their own local and regional gun control laws that are direct challenges to state preemption laws, such that they are then “forcing gun rights activists to do something about it….” Well, then, why not employ that same strategy in reverse (more often).

    For starters and example, the more conservative regions of California could consult with their local law enforcement agencies, come to a tacit pragmatic agreement, and pass local/regional laws that relax some (all?!) of the more obnoxiously restrictive state laws. That is, force the State of California to reckon with parts of their citizenry who believe they should enjoy basic Constitutionally protected civil rights. The state could sue, withhold funding, even order State Police enforcement of state laws… but it would surely make the news, muster support, and rock the boat… which might ultimately result in good things.

    At the least, it would say to American cities and counties that “do things their way,” that crafting arbitrary regional laws is ultimately a rabble-rouser tactic in a larger strategy that necessarily must confront the reality of the Bill of Rights. And force a default towards a top-down approach in America, with regard to the Second Amendment… (i.e., I understand there are some who are baby-pee-pants scared that 2A infringements will magically manifest in their red state if states’ rights are superseded by Constitutional rights– because they are lucky to live in a Texas rather than a Cali, etc.– so they want nothing to do with anything remotely federal… but the Bill of Rights does trump states’ rights, sorry– and California needs to be slapped down, and yes, National Reciprocity needs to be federal law as of YESTERDAY, regardless of the absurd sissified paranoia of federal restrictions materializing out of thin air, despite being wholly absent from the theory, language, and application of that proposed law…).

    But… what do I know. There are some perils and pitfalls to headbutts and low blows, sure. So maybe “two wrongs doesn’t make a right.” But maybe these local yokels don’t grasp why they’re making a wrong in the first place, and need some illustrative instruction. Just saying.

    Be safe.

    • PS– I just wanna say, because I haven’t uttered it aloud in a few weeks, and this is the appropriate forum… so what the heck, why not?


      ahh… that’s nice… every once in a while, you just have to say it and mean it, because the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 🙂

      • “… the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

        Feel better?

        We have only those rights we can personally enforce. A “right” that cannot be exercised in all respects is not a full “right”. We all have the “right” to own whichever weapon we can afford. We have the “right” to obtain those weapons without government permission. Now what? The use of those weapons, once observed by authorities you are subject to arrest and trial.

        There is no convincing police that you have an absolute right that cannot be infringed, nor can you be prevented from obtaining and possessing those weapons. So….what is the point in shouting “shall not be infringed”? That statement has no standing in law. That statement is not Kryptonite to arrest and confiscation of your weapons. That statement and five dollars will buy you a cup of premium coffee, but not an attorney to defend you.

  7. The bump stock ban by regulation will have the same force as the “no shouldering of arm braces” rule.
    Until someone is arrested and comes before a judge, it has no force at all.
    Once it is upheld by a Federal Judge, then it is a regulation that can be enforced.
    I was always amazed that everyone obeyed that rule about braces.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here