|
Doe v. Columbus |
For media inquiries, please contact:
Lisa Gates, vice president of communications
(614) 224-3255 or Lisa@BuckeyeInstitute.org
Background on the Case
In December 2022, Columbus City Council passed Ordinance 3176-2022, which made the previously lawful possession of gun magazines that hold 30 or more rounds of ammunition illegal. In February 2023, in response to The Buckeye Institute’s case, City Council passed Ordinance 0680-2023, in an attempt to address one of the claims Buckeye raised in its lawsuit. In passing both ordinances, the city council did not link the ban on “large capacity magazines” to any misuse of such magazines within Columbus and did not provide any rationale as to how it would reduce the crime problem, which Columbus City Council claimed it was addressing in passing the ban.
The problems with both ordinances are numerous—they violate the U.S. Constitution, the Ohio Constitution, and Ohio law—threatening jail time for those who don’t comply with the new ban and a new gun storage mandate.
The U.S. Constitution is clear—“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” and the Ohio Constitution enshrined this right in Article I, Section 4, which is even clearer: “The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security[.]” Yet, Columbus City Council has circumvented the rights of The Buckeye Institute’s clients, along with the rights of all law-abiding Ohioans, by enacting impermissible restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
Furthermore, the Ohio Supreme Court has twice upheld an Ohio law that establishes “uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, other transfer, manufacture, taxation, keeping, and reporting of loss or theft of firearms, their components, and their ammunition.” The Ohio Supreme Court has twice ruled that this law does not violate Ohio’s home-rule authority and has made it clear that cities may not enact firearms regulations stricter than Ohio law—which is precisely what the city of Columbus did in passing Ordinance 3176-2022 and Ordinance 0680-2023.
About Buckeye’s Clients
The Buckeye Institute represents six residents of Central Ohio who are not named because Ordinance 3176-2022 and Ordinance 0680-2023 have made their previously lawful possession of the prohibited magazines illegal. Buckeye’s clients are:
- A former National Firearms Association instructor, who is a senior citizen and is well versed in safe firearms handling and usage, including firearms accepting magazines holding 30 rounds or more of ammunition;
- An owner of a rifle that is kept for self-defense and which has a 30-round magazine;
- A person who is confined to a wheelchair due to a disability and who cannot easily reload a firearm when defending against home invasions;
- A former social worker who is Muslim has a firearm for self-defense and security in the face of rising incidents of anti-Muslim discrimination and hate crimes;
- An African-American woman who, after an assault, purchased a firearm that uses a 30-round magazine for her protection; and
- A resident of Columbus who lives in Delaware County and a firearm with a 30-round magazine for his family’s protection.
Facts of the Case
Current Status
The appeal on the preliminary injunction is pending with the Ohio Supreme Court. The case is pending with the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas.
Case Number
Ohio Supreme Court: 2024-0056
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas: 23 CV H 02 0089
Originally Filed
February 16, 2023
Original Court
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas
Lawyers
Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer, The Buckeye Institute
David C. Tryon, director of litigation, The Buckeye Institute
Jay R. Carson, senior litigator, The Buckeye Institute
Alex M. Certo, legal fellow, The Buckeye Institute
Claims in the Case
The Buckeye Institute argues that Ordinance 3176-2022 and Ordinance 0680-2023 violate the following:
1) Ohio Revised Code 9.68, which unequivocally requires uniform firearms laws in the state of Ohio; and
2) Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution, which protects the individual right to bear arms.
Timeline of the Case
April 2, 2024
In Doe v. Columbus, the Ohio Supreme Court left in place the lower court’s preliminary injunction barring Columbus from enforcing its unconstitutional law and accepted the city’s appeal on two specific questions: (1) whether the government may immediately appeal preliminary injunctions of its laws, and (2) whether a preliminary injunction of a statute or ordinance causes irreparable harm to the government and is immediately appealable.
February 12, 2024
The Buckeye Institute files its response to Columbus’s third attempt to reverse the preliminary injunction in Doe v. Columbus.
November 29, 2023
Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals grants The Buckeye Institute’s request to dismiss the city of Columbus’ appeal of Judge Gormley’s April 25 ruling, which granted Buckeye’s request for a preliminary injunction. The oral arguments scheduled for December 7 are canceled.
November 6, 2023
Oral arguments on the preliminary injunction in Doe. V. Columbus is scheduled for December 7, 2023, before Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals.
October 6, 2023
The Buckeye Institute files a notice of additional authority informing the court of two recent court rulings in similar cases—Duncan v. Bonta and West v. Cincinnati.
September 14, 2023
The Buckeye Institute files a memorandum opposing Columbus’s motion to stay discovery pending an appeals court decision in Doe v. Columbus.
August 7, 2023
The Buckeye Institute files its appellate brief with Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals, replying to the city of Columbus’s appeal of the preliminary injunction in Doe v. Columbus.
June 21, 2023
The Buckeye Institute files a motion outlining why the city of Columbus has no legal basis for its attempt to add the state of Ohio as a third-party defendant in Doe v. Columbus.
June 8, 2023
The Buckeye Institute files a response with Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals to the city’s filing opposing Buckeye’s motion to dismiss the city’s appeal of Judge Gormley’s April 25 ruling. Buckeye also files a response with Ohio’s Fifth District Circuit Court of Appeals opposing a request by the city to submit irrelevant materials.
- Reply to Columbus’ Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss City’s Appeal
- Response Opposing Introduction of Irrelevant Materials
May 22, 2023
After the city of Columbus appealed Judge Gormley’s April 25 ruling granting The Buckeye Institute’s request for a preliminary injunction, for its clients to proceed pseudonymously, denying the city’s request to dismiss Doe v. Columbus and to transfer the case to a different venue, Buckeye files a motion to dismiss the city’s appeal on the grounds that the rulings are not appealable.
May 16, 2023
Judge David M. Gormley denies the city’s request to stay the court’s April 25 ruling, which halted enforcement of the city’s unconstitutional ordinance.
May 5, 2023
The Buckeye Institute files a reply opposing a motion by the city of Columbus to stay Judge Gormley’s April 25 ruling, which halted enforcement of the city’s unconstitutional ordinance.
April 25, 2023
Judge David M. Gormley grants The Buckeye Institute’s request for a preliminary injunction in Doe v. Columbus, staying the enforcement of Columbus City Ordinance 3176-2022. Judge Gormley also grants Buckeye’s request for its clients to proceed pseudonymously and denies the city of Columbus’s request to dismiss and transfer the case to a different venue.
April 12, 2023
The Buckeye Institute files a motion for leave to proceed pseudonymously in Doe v. Columbus, allowing Buckeye’s newest client to use the pseudonym John Doe 5 as outlined in the amended complaint.
April 7, 2023
The Buckeye Institute files a response to Columbus’ reply to the renewed motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in Doe v. Columbus.
April 6, 2023
The Buckeye Institute files a reply opposing Columbus’ motion to dismiss or transfer Doe v. Columbus.
March 17, 2023
The Buckeye Institute files several replies and motions in Doe v. Columbus.
- Renewed Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
- Reply to the Defendants’ Opposition to Buckeye’s Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously
- Supplemental Memo to Buckeye’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
March 10, 2023
The Buckeye Institute filed an amended complaint in Doe v. Columbus, adding another plaintiff and updating the claims after Columbus City Council passed a new city ordinance in response to Buckeye’s initial filing.
March 7, 2023
The Buckeye Institute submitted two filings in Doe v. Columbus—a motion in opposition to dismiss or transfer the case to a different venue and a supplement to Buckeye’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
- Motion in Opposition to Dismiss or Transfer
- Post-Hearing Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
February 24, 2023
The Buckeye Institute files a motion for leave to proceed pseudonymously in Doe v. Columbus, allowing Buckeye’s clients to use the pseudonyms John Doe 1–4 and Jane Doe as outlined in the complaint.
February 16, 2023
The Buckeye Institute files Doe v. Columbus against the city of Columbus to protect the Second Amendment rights of Ohioans after the Columbus City Council passed Ordinance 3176-2022 in violation of the U.S. and Ohio constitutions.
