## Facts

- The Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C. 9.68 to create statewide uniformity in firearms regulation and to preempt conflicting local firearms ordinances.
- The City of Cleveland had adopted multiple firearms ordinances regulating matters such as minors’ possession, weapons in public places, children’s access to firearms, “assault weapons,” and handgun registration.
- Cleveland filed a declaratory-judgment action asserting that R.C. 9.68 violated municipal home-rule authority, exceeded legislative power, and violated the Ohio Constitution’s single-subject rule.
- Cleveland conceded its ordinances were an exercise of police power and conflicted with R.C. 9.68; the dispute centered on whether R.C. 9.68 qualified as a “general law” under the Home Rule Amendment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the State, upholding R.C. 9.68.
- The court of appeals reversed, concluding Ohio’s firearms statutes were not sufficiently comprehensive for R.C. 9.68 to be a “general law.”
- The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review.

## Issues

1. Whether R.C. 9.68 is a “general law” that preempts conflicting municipal firearms ordinances under Ohio’s Home Rule Amendment.
2. Whether R.C. 9.68’s mandatory costs and attorney-fee provisions violate separation of powers by constraining judicial authority over remedies.
3. Whether enactment of R.C. 9.68 within Sub. H.B. 347 violated the Ohio Constitution’s single-subject rule.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated summary judgment for the State.
- The court held R.C. 9.68 is a “general law” that displaces conflicting municipal firearms ordinances.
- The court held the statute’s mandatory fee and cost provisions do not violate separation of powers.
- The court held Sub. H.B. 347 did not violate the single-subject rule.

## Legal Principles

- A state statute preempts conflicting municipal ordinances under the Home Rule Amendment if it qualifies as a “general law.”
- Under the four-part test for a “general law,” the statute must: (1) be part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment, (2) apply uniformly statewide, (3) set forth police or similar regulations rather than merely limit municipal power, and (4) prescribe a rule of conduct upon citizens generally.
- A “comprehensive” statewide enactment need not regulate every aspect of the subject and may include exceptions.
- A municipal ordinance conflicts with a general law when the ordinance forbids what the statute permits or permits what the statute forbids; conflicting ordinances are displaced.
- The legislature may specify remedies, including mandatory attorney-fee and cost shifting, without violating separation of powers.
- A bill satisfies the single-subject rule if its provisions are germane to a common purpose; firearms-related provisions may be enacted together.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court upheld R.C. 9.68 as a uniform, statewide “general law” that preempts Cleveland’s stricter local firearms ordinances, and it rejected constitutional challenges to the statute’s mandatory fee-shifting remedy and to the enactment’s compliance with the single-subject rule.


City of Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St. 3d 135, 942 N.E.2d 370 (Ohio 2010)