The battle to defend the Second Amendment in Ohio took an unwelcome turn with a recent state Supreme Court ruling that gives anti-gun municipalities new tools to fight injunctions blocking their unconstitutional ordinances.
Ohio is a preemption state. Local governments lack the authority to enact gun control measures beyond what state law explicitly permits. But Columbus decided to test those limits anyway. In December 2022, the city council approved two ordinances targeting gun owners. The first banned “large capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 30 rounds. The second created a new offense for “negligent storage of a firearm.”
Six anonymous citizens brought a lawsuit challenging both measures as violations of R.C. 9.68 and Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution. In April 2023, a Delaware County Common Pleas Court judge issued a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the ordinances while the case, known as Doe v. Columbus, proceeded through litigation.
Rather than wait for a final ruling, Columbus sought to appeal the injunction immediately. According to a report by Court News Ohio, the Fifth District Court of Appeals rejected the appeal, determining it had no jurisdiction until the trial court completed the case. Columbus escalated the matter to the state’s highest court.
By a 5-2 margin, the Ohio Supreme Court sided with Columbus. The majority determined that a preliminary injunction blocking a municipality from enforcing a new ordinance constitutes a “final order” subject to immediate appeal.
Justice Daniel R. Hawkins authored the majority opinion, explaining that both the state and municipalities possess a “sovereign interest” in enacting and enforcing legislation. He wrote that “a court’s order enjoining the operation of such laws causes irreparable injury to that sovereign interest.”
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy joined the opinion along with Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, and Megan E. Shanahan. Justice Patrick F. Fischer dissented without issuing a written opinion.
The majority grounded its reasoning in the Home Rule Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, which grants municipalities broad authority to regulate for the public welfare. “Otherwise stated, the Home Rule Amendment confers on municipalities a sovereign interest in exercising police powers to enact legislation for the public good,” the opinion stated.
The justices recognized the inherent conflict between elected bodies passing laws and courts reviewing their constitutionality. “In this case, the city enacted ordinances that its elected councilmembers and mayor believe – rightly or wrongly – will address gun violence in their city. A single trial judge – rightly or wrongly – found these ordinances facially unconstitutional and – with the stroke of a pen – enjoined the city from enforcing them.”
Justice Jennifer Brunner filed a dissent contending that state law provides no automatic right for municipalities to appeal preliminary injunctions. She observed that the General Assembly passed an amendment in 2024 giving the state itself the authority to appeal such injunctions after trial judges blocked state laws. That amendment, however, excluded municipalities from its scope.
“In total, the majority points to no specific harm actually suffered by the city in requiring it to wait until after the case is fully litigated to institute an appeal,” Justice Brunner wrote. “But more importantly, the majority’s rationale ignores the harm suffered by plaintiffs in cases like this if an unconstitutional law is imposed on them.”
Justice Brunner cautioned that the majority’s logic would allow any municipality whose ordinance is temporarily blocked to bypass the statutory requirements of R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) governing when orders become final and appealable. She maintained that a city seeking the most effective remedy should appeal after a full trial with complete evidence and argument, not before the underlying constitutional question is resolved.
Addressing those who might worry about a single judge wielding too much power, Justice Brunner emphasized that Ohio’s judicial branch is “empowered and required to rein in laws that go too far.”
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fifth District to evaluate the substance of Columbus’s appeal.
This decision represents a setback for every Ohioan who believes in the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The ruling enables cities like Columbus to prolong legal battles over clearly unconstitutional gun restrictions by appealing injunctions the moment they are issued.
Gun owners will now face the burden of fighting the same legal war across multiple courts while hostile municipalities exploit procedural loopholes to keep their illegal laws in play. The entire purpose of Ohio’s preemption statute is to prevent local governments from creating a maze of conflicting gun regulations that burden law-abiding citizens.
When the courts make it easier for cities to evade that protection, the Second Amendment pays the price. Ohioans who cherish their rights must remain vigilant and recognize that this fight is far from over.
Supreme Court Asked to Stop New York’s Lawfare End-Run Around PLCAA
About José Niño
José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.
