City of Cincinnati v. Baskin
Ohio Supreme Court
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
- Arnold v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Morehart v. County of Santa BarbaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- In Re HubbardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
- Lenci v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1964
- People Ex Rel. Deukmejian v. County of MendocinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.