Columbus, OH – On Thursday, The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief in West v. Cincinnati urging Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals to uphold the lower court’s ruling that correctly upheld the constitutionality of the state’s preemption law. 

“Cincinnati would have us believe that policies on handling and storing firearms are the point of this case. They aren’t,” said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. “The court’s obligation in this case is to properly interpret and apply the laws enacted by the General Assembly, which Cincinnati’s firearm storage law clearly violates.”

While noting that there are legitimate debates about policies requiring firearm handling and storage techniques, The Buckeye Institute argues in its brief that this case is about Ohio’s firearms preemption law, which the Ohio Supreme Court found to be constitutional in Cleveland v. Ohio.

Tryon continued, “The Ohio Supreme Court has spoken—twice; the state’s preemption law is constitutional and is binding on lower courts. In West v. Cincinnati, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas ruled correctly, and the appeals court must uphold that ruling.”

# # #

UPDATE: On May 22, 2024, Ohio’s First District Court of Appeals agreed with arguments The Buckeye Institute presented in its amicus brief when it ruled that Cincinnati’s ordinance conflicts with Ohio’s preemption law.