Columbus, OH, Passes Ban; Court Fight Looms
by Dave Workman
Senior Editor
One of Ohio’s leading grassroots gun rights organizations is urging gunowners in Columbus to essentially defy a new ban on so-called assault weapons passed unanimously by the City Council July 11.
In a communiqué to gunowners on its website, the People’s Rights Organization (PRO) issued the following statement: “PRO is advising its members and gunowners in Columbus to move firearms they suspect may be affected (the new law is not specific about many guns) by this ordinance out of the city until this matter is resolved in the courts. We do not advise that people sell them off, unless they choose to, and we definitely advise against registering your firearms with the city of Columbus.”
PRO’s Brent Greer told Gun Week, “Gunowners are offended, deeply, deeply offended by this. Council is not listening to reason on this. It is purely political.”
Politics in this case could cost the city millions of dollars in convention revenue, if the National Rifle Association (NRA) changes its plans to hold its 2007 convention in Columbus. NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told Gun Week recently that “all options are on the table” at this point.
It would be the second change for the 2007 annual meeting, which was originally scheduled for Salt Lake City, UT. Next year’s event is slated for Milwaukee, WI.
Citing Chamber of Commerce figures, Arulanandam said an NRA convention can bring anywhere from $12 to $20 million in revenue to a city like Columbus. This year’s event in Houston, TX, brought in “closer to $20 million,” he said.
Under the ordinance, so-called assault weapons may not be given as gifts, willed to heirs, sold or even loaned to another person. If the owner passes away, the firearm must be moved out of the city, rendered inoperable or turned over to the police for destruction.
Led by anti-gun Mayor Pro Tem Michael Mentel, who heads the council’s Public Safety Committee, the council enacted the ban, which becomes effective next month. After Aug. 11, it will be illegal to sell rifles, handguns and even shotguns that fall under the broad definition of “assault weapons” within the city limits.
The city has banned “assault weapons” twice before, and both times had those bans overturned in court. PRO strongly indicated a third legal-go-round is on the horizon.
Under terms of the ordinance, owners of such firearms will have 90 days in which to register their guns with the police. Under the ordinance, an “assault weapon” includes any semi-auto rifle with various features, such as a conspicuously protruding pistol grip, or “any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.” Also included is any muzzle brake or compensator; a folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock, or a barrel shroud.
The ban also targets some semi-auto pistols with similar features, or internal magazines that accept more than 10 rounds. Likewise, some semi-automatic shotguns are covered if they have extended magazine tubes, folding or telescoping stocks, or the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
Violators will face first-degree misdemeanor charges for the first offense, and could spend 30 days in jail if convicted twice for violating the ban. That jail sentence jumps to a possible 90 days for a third conviction.
PRO was defiant in the wake of the vote, accusing council members of “verbal gymnastics.” On its website, PRO noted that it “has not determined what next steps will be taken, but our history has been one of litigation in these matters.”
Greer said PRO has retained constitutional attorney Stephen Halbrook in anticipation of a court battle. Greer said a final decision has not yet been reached.
There appeared to be plenty of rhetoric involved in the vote. According to The Columbus Dispatch, Councilwoman Charleta Tavares called the affected firearms “weapons of mass destruction.” That prompted PRO Chairman Terence Regan to question whether Tavares supported the war in Iraq, which started in the belief that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” stockpiled in that country, and because allied forces have found lots of the same kinds of firearms that she voted to ban.
Return to Archive Index