## Facts

- Cleveland enacted Ordinance No. 415-89 banning the possession and sale of defined “assault weapons” within the city.
- The ordinance treated covered weapons as contraband subject to seizure and included exceptions for certain groups (including military and police).
- Multiple residents filed suit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the ordinance violated the Ohio Constitution and federal law.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the City on all counts and upheld the ordinance.
- The court of appeals generally upheld the ordinance as a valid exercise of municipal police power, but found a limited federal conflict related to firearm transportation and remanded on one count.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted review after both sides sought further review.

## Issues

1. Whether the ordinance violates Section 4, Article I of the Ohio Constitution (right to bear arms for defense and security).
2. Whether Section 4, Article I provides protection independent of, and potentially broader than, the federal Second Amendment baseline.
3. Whether the ordinance is a valid exercise of municipal home-rule police power under Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution.
4. Whether the ordinance is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held the Ohio Constitution is a document of independent force and may provide greater individual-rights protection than the federal minimum.
- The court held Section 4, Article I confers a fundamental right to bear arms, but the right is not absolute and may be reasonably regulated.
- The court upheld Ordinance No. 415-89 as a proper exercise of Cleveland’s police power under the Ohio home-rule provisions and as consistent with Section 4, Article I.
- The court held the ordinance did not violate the Supremacy Clause and did not conflict with the cited federal statutes and regulations, rejecting the appellate court’s narrower preemption conclusion.
- The court ultimately sustained the ordinance’s constitutionality and reversed any contrary federal-preemption ruling by the court of appeals.

## Legal Principles

- Lawfully enacted legislation and ordinances are presumed constitutional; a challenger must show unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt.
- State constitutional guarantees operate independently of federal doctrine; states may provide greater protections so long as they meet federal minimum protections.
- Ohio’s right to bear arms is fundamental but subject to reasonable regulation to protect public safety.
- A municipal firearms restriction may be sustained under home-rule police power when it is a safety measure and does not eliminate the core ability to possess arms for defense and security.
- A local ordinance is invalid under the Supremacy Clause only where federal law preempts it by direct conflict or other recognized preemption grounds; absent such conflict, the ordinance stands.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Ohio recognized an individual, fundamental Ohio constitutional right to bear arms while holding that Cleveland could reasonably restrict a defined class of “assault weapons” as a public-safety regulation and that the ordinance was not federally preempted.


Arnold v. City of Cleveland, 67 Ohio St. 3d 35, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993)