West v. Cincinnati, 2024 Ohio 1951

Frank West left an unsecured gun at home, which was accessed and fired by his son's friend, injuring his son.
West was charged under both state and Cincinnati's municipal law (CMC 915-3—"safe storage" gun law) for endangering children and negligent assault.
West then filed a civil suit seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction, arguing that CMC 915 (specifically, the safe storage requirement) was preempted by Ohio's broad firearms preemption statute, R.C. 9.68.
The trial court granted a permanent injunction barring enforcement of all of CMC 915, finding it preempted by state law.
On appeal, the appellate court reviewed whether a local ordinance regulating gun storage could coexist with R.C. 9.68, and whether the injunction was proper and overbroad.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can West seek injunctive relief while facing criminal prosecution?	R.C. 9.68(B) creates an exception, letting those being prosecuted for conflicted ordinances seek injunctions directly.	Traditional equity bars injunctions during prosecution; he had an adequate remedy in his criminal case.	Injunction procedurally allowed; R.C. 9.68(B) creates an exception to abstention during criminal proceedings.
Is CMC 915-3 preempted by R.C. 9.68?	Yes; CMC 915-3(b) imposes a firearm storage restriction not present in state/federal law, directly conflicting with R.C. 9.68.	No; argues ordinance mirrors/conforms with state endangerment law, and sets out only a specific “substantial risk” definition already recognized.	Only CMC 915-3(b) (negligent storage provision) is preempted and void; other subsections are not preempted.
Was the trial court's injunction overbroad?	Initially sought full CMC 915 enjoined, later conceded injunction should be limited.	Injunction went too far, impacting non-conflicting code sections.	Court modified the injunction to only bar enforcement of CMC 915-3(b); other sections not enjoined.
Did lack of notice in consolidating hearings prejudice the City?	N/A	Claimed prejudice due to lack of notice for permanent injunction hearing.	No prejudice found—the issue was purely legal; City could not show it would have presented additional evidence.

City of Cleveland v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 135 (Ohio 2010) (upheld constitutionality of a prior version of R.C. 9.68 and addressed state preemption of local gun laws)
Anderson v. Brown, 13 Ohio St.2d 53 (Ohio 1968) (equitable relief proper if criminal defense is not itself an adequate remedy)
Troy Amusement Co. v. Attenweiler, 137 Ohio St. 460 (Ohio 1940) (equity abstains from interfering with pending criminal cases unless statute provides otherwise)