Ohioans could seek damages from local governments in Second Amendment lawsuits under bill

The Ohio Senate recently passed a bill that would allow residents to seek punitive or exemplary damages from local governments that enforce stricter gun laws than the state.

Senate Bill 278 would add the damages to current laws that allow Ohioans to challenge gun laws that are inconsistent with state law and the Ohio Constitution.

Sponsors and supporters of the legislation say that it will strengthen current state law and protect Second Amendment rights. Some groups have opposed the bill and said that it would interfere with the home rule of local governments.

Jim Samuel, the legislative affairs director for Buckeye Firearms Association, said that the bill would provide a stronger deterrent for local governments considering measures that would create local laws that are stricter than state laws.

“Despite the law, and despite losing multiple court cases, municipalities continue to ignore preemption law,” Samuel said. “The fact is, the small legal fees they must pay when they lose has not proven to be an effective deterrent.”

Ohio Revised Code 9.68 bans local governments from enacting gun control laws stricter than state or federal laws, and currently allows individuals or groups to sue municipalities that enforce laws preempted by state regulations for legal fees.

“SB278 adds teeth to the law,” Samuel said. “By inserting just five words into ORC 9.68, it expands the nature of damages an individual may seek against a municipal corporation to include punitive or exemplary damages.”

“Cities have proven that they will never abide by this law until they can be held accountable in a way that exacts a significant price.”

Kent Scarrett, the executive director of the Ohio Municipal League, testified in opposition to the legislation.

“This bill would unnecessarily expose cities and villages – and ultimately local taxpayers – to increased financial risk, even when municipalities are acting in good faith to carry out their responsibilities,” Scarrett said. “The threat of punitive damages could discourage local officials from making routine decisions and enforcing laws intended to protect public safety and welfare.”

The Ohio Mayors’ Alliance also opposed the bill, saying it would violate the state constitution.

“We oppose this proposed policy for two reasons: first, because it undermines our cities’ efforts to reduce gun violence and protect public safety, and second, because it violates the home rule provision of the Ohio Constitution,” OMA said.

State Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, who is the primary sponsor of the bill, said that the legislation seeks to protect both home rule and constitutional rights.

“I believe strongly in home rule,” Johnson said in a written testimony. “Small local government is at the heart of our republic and the American tradition. However, the line must be drawn at anything which violates the constitution, the enshrining document which supersedes all else within our country.”

“Rights like freedom of speech or due process are seldom tampered with by our municipalities,” the lawmaker added. “Yet, we often find the Second Amendment under constant threat by these local ordinances or rules.”

The Ohio Supreme Court recently upheld a preliminary injunction prohibiting the city of Columbus from enforcing a ban on magazines in Doe v. Columbus after the city appealed the decisions of lower courts multiple times.

The Buckeye Institute and six anonymous residents sued the city after the city council passed Ordinance 3176-2022 and Ordinance 0680-2023, which made the possession of gun magazines that hold 30 or more rounds illegal.

The plaintiffs said that the ordinances violated both ORC 9.68 and the state constitution.

Johnson said that the additional damages included in SB 278 would discourage municipalities from passing laws that would lead to court cases like Doe.

“With this legislation, it is my hope that we impose potential financial repercussions for these cities who so frivolously trample on the rights of their residents,” Johnson said. “We should allow vigilant defenders of freedom to go through the proper judicial process while simultaneously having financial protections for doing so, through the pursuit of punitive or exemplary damages.”

The legislation, passed by the Senate on April 15, heads to the House of Representatives for consideration.