Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Oberlin
72 N.E.3d 676
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. (OCC) and the Kuzawas sued the City of Oberlin seeking declaratory judgment and injunctions that various city ordinances banning firearms in parks conflicted with R.C. 9.68 and requesting attorney fees under R.C. 9.68(B).
- Oberlin amended one ordinance (927.07) to prohibit only the "unlawful" possession/use/discharge of firearms in city parks and later repealed several other challenged ordinances (549.02–549.07, 549.10, 549.12) after the lawsuit was filed.
- The trial court held the challenges to the repealed ordinances were moot, found the amended park ordinance (927.07) did not conflict with R.C. 9.68 and was constitutional, and ruled OCC was not entitled to attorney fees.
- OCC appealed, raising three issues: statutory conflict with R.C. 9.68, mootness/attorney-fee entitlement for repealed ordinances, and vagueness of the amended ordinance.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it upheld validity of the amended ordinance and rejected the vagueness claim for lack of jurisdiction, but found a genuine factual dispute existed about whether OCC "prevailed" (and thus is entitled to fees) when Oberlin repealed the ordinances after suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oberlin Ordinance 927.07 (as amended) conflicts with R.C. 9.68 | 927.07 still effectively bans possession in parks and thus conflicts with R.C. 9.68's broad right to possess and carry firearms | The amended ordinance only prohibits "unlawful" possession/use/discharge and therefore complements state law rather than conflicts with it | Court: No conflict; ordinance valid — affirmed |
| Whether challenges to repealed ordinances are moot and whether OCC is entitled to attorney fees under R.C. 9.68(B) because repeal followed the lawsuit | OCC: repeal occurred only after OCC sued; OCC thereby "prevailed in a challenge" and is entitled to mandatory fees and costs under R.C. 9.68(B) | Oberlin: repeal renders controversy moot and OCC did not "prevail" because no judicial ruling invalidated the ordinances | Court: Challenges to repealed ordinances are moot, but a genuine issue of material fact exists whether OCC "obtained the relief sought" by causing repeal; remand to resolve fee entitlement |
| Whether 927.07 is unconstitutionally vague | OCC: language (e.g., "unlawful") is vague and violates due process | Oberlin: ordinance is clear and aligns with state law; vagueness claim was not pleaded or served on the Attorney General | Court: Vagueness claim not properly before the court (not pleaded or served on AG), so court lacked jurisdiction to consider it — claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135 (2010) (R.C. 9.68 is a general law that displaces municipal firearm ordinances)
- Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 120 Ohio St.3d 96 (2008) (home-rule conflict test and field occupation on handgun possession)
- Arnott v. Arnott, 132 Ohio St.3d 401 (2012) (standard of review for declaratory-judgment justiciability)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant's summary-judgment burden and burden-shifting framework)