Legal Opinion
City of Cincinnati v. Baskin
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 8, 2006No. 2004-1829PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.
{¶ 1} On May 31, 2003, defendant-appellee, Colt Lee Baskin, was charged with violating Cincinnati Municipal Code 708-37, which prohibits the possession of semiautomatic firearms, including any semiautomatic rifle with a capacity of more than ten rounds.1 The complaint alleged that Baskin was observed to be in possession of “a semi automatic firearm assault rifle SKS capabele [sic] of a capacity of more than ten rounds. Magazine affixed not detachable.”
{¶ 2} Baskin moved to dismiss the charge, claiming that the ordinance is in conflict with the state statutes governing the possession of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. BurnettOhio Supreme Court · 2001
- American Financial Services Ass'n v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- City of Cincinnati v. HoffmanOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- City of Canton v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- City of Middleburg Heights v. Ohio Board of Building StandardsOhio Supreme Court · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Mendenhall v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. City of ClydeOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- City of Cleveland v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. PawelskiOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
- City of Cleveland v. StateOhio Court of Appeals · 2009
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.