Legal Opinion · Concurring in the judgment

City of Cincinnati v. Baskin

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 8, 2006No. 2004-1829Published

1Concurring in the judgmentO’Connor, J.

{¶ 27} Appellant, the city of Cincinnati, has asked this court to determine whether Cincinnati Municipal Code 708-37, which prohibits possession of any semiautomatic rifle with a magazine capacity of more than ten rounds, conflicts with R.C. 2923.17(A) for purposes of Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution, otherwise known as the Home Rule Amendment. I conclude that the ordinance and the statute do not conflict, and therefore I concur in the judgment of the majority.

*285General-Law Analysis

{¶ 28} I agree with the majority that we should focus on R.C. 2923.17(A) when determining whether…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Arnold v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Morehart v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  3. In Re HubbardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  4. Lenci v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1964
  5. People Ex Rel. Deukmejian v. County of MendocinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API