Buckeye Firearms Found., Inc. v. Cincinnati
163 N.E.3d 68
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In May 2018 Cincinnati enacted Ordinance 91-2018, an emergency municipal ban on "trigger activators" (e.g., bump stocks, trigger cranks, slide-fire devices, binary triggers), criminalizing their possession and transfer as misdemeanors.
- Plaintiffs Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Ohioans for Concealed Carry, and Jordan Telting sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the ordinance conflicted with Ohio Rev. Code § 9.68, which protects rights to own, possess, sell, transfer, and transport "firearms, parts of a firearm, [and] its components."
- The trial court granted a preliminary injunction, later granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, held the ordinance conflicted with R.C. 9.68 under Ohio home-rule law, and awarded attorney fees and costs to plaintiffs.
- Key factual record: expert testimony established (1) trigger activators alter a firearm’s rate of fire, (2) some firearms are manufactured or custom-built with trigger activators as original equipment (so they function as part of the firearm), and (3) some trigger activators are aftermarket accessories that are demountable.
- The appellate court affirmed: it found Buckeye Firearms had associational and individual standing and held that because trigger activators can be "components," the municipal ban conflicted with R.C. 9.68 and thus exceeded Cincinnati’s home-rule power; the fee award was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue (Buckeye Firearms) | Buckeye Firearms has associational standing (members injured) and, as a corporation, has an injury from impaired fundraising/transfers. | Buckeye lacks taxpayer standing and lacks organizational/member-specific injury for declaratory relief. | Buckeye has associational and statutory declaratory-judgment standing; its evidence showed concrete injury traceable to the ordinance. |
| Home-rule conflict: Are "trigger activators" § 9.68 "components"? | Trigger activators can be "components" because they combine with other parts to form a functioning firearm and sometimes are original equipment. | Trigger activators are aftermarket accessories (not components); "components" should mean original or essential parts. | The court treated "component" by its ordinary meaning (a constituent part); because some trigger activators are integral/original equipment, the ordinance directly conflicts with R.C. 9.68 and is invalid. |
| Award of attorney fees and costs | Prevailing challenger statute (R.C. 9.68 and taxpayer statute) permits reasonable fees and expenses; the requested award was reasonable. | The fees were excessive (overbilled, too many intra-counsel communications) and some costs are not recoverable. | Trial court did not abuse its discretion: lodestar approach supported award; amended R.C. 9.68 authorizes recovery of broad "reasonable expenses," including expert fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendenhall v. Akron, 881 N.E.2d 255 (Ohio 2008) (sets the three-part Home Rule conflict test and distinguishes direct vs. implied conflict)
- Cleveland v. State, 942 N.E.2d 370 (Ohio 2010) (explains the general-law test and confirms R.C. 9.68 meets that test)
- Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 896 N.E.2d 967 (Ohio 2008) (addresses interplay of R.C. 9.68 and municipal regulation of handguns)
- Am. Fin. Servs. Assn. v. Cleveland, 858 N.E.2d 776 (Ohio 2006) (discusses Home Rule and conflict analysis)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury, traceability, and redressability)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Second Amendment core-right analysis and limits on regulations that revoke core self-defense use)
- United States v. Carter, 465 F.3d 658 (6th Cir. 2006) (illustrates factual analysis whether components suffice to render a device operable)
- Auto-Ordnance Corp. v. United States, 822 F.2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (contrasts "accessory" vs. "part/component" definitions)