🚀 go-pugleaf

COLUMBUS LAWSUIT...

Gun-ban suit City's law stands up in U.S. Court

     These were the blaring words in the Columbus Dispatch on
Tuesday, June 23, 1992.  In the following article, written by
Barbara Carmen, Columbus was purported to have won a devastating
victory in the court challenge of its restrictive gun control law.
According to City Attorney Ron O'Brien "The court concluded it was
within council's power to ban those weapons."  O'Brien went on to
say "The court found the law as written and on its face
constitutional and not vague."
     In the spring of 1989, PRO filed a lawsuit against the gun
ban.  This suit was dropped and the current suit was filed in May
of 1991.  The plaintiffs in this case are Dan's Gun Store, Dan
Donaldson, owner; Gerry Smolak, Barb Smith and Vicki Spino-Smith,
all Columbus residents. The last three plaintiffs are high-power
shooters that are unable to purchase Springfield or Colt firearms
at Dan's because of the Columbus ban.  Colt and Springfield are
also plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  The suit is being handled by
Stephen Halbrook, Ph.D., attorney and counselor at law in Fairfax,
Virginia.  Halbrook has written several books and has worked
closely with the NRA in similar cases.
     Carmen's article went on to explain that this may be the first
suit of it's kind where manufacturers have challenged a local gun
control law.  The article also states that Judge James L. Graham
struck down the suit.  O'Brien said that the Columbus ban
specifically bans the sale of 24 assault rifles and names their
makers, including Colt and Springfield.  It also "outlaws other
models by the same manufacturer with the same action design that
have slight modifications or enhancements of firearms listed."
O'Brien said that the purpose of this clause was to "stop gun
companies from simply renaming weapons so they could still be sold
in the city."  O'Brien concluded his remarks in the article by
saying, "Although Columbus won the suit, the fight will cost the
taxpayers an undetermined amount.  The court ordered parties were
to split the costs."
     Carmen, in her factual reporting of the outcome of the
lawsuit, contacted Councilman John Kennedy, one of the originators
of the gun ban.  In her article Kennedy said that the victory is
incomplete.  Semiautomatic weapons can still be purchased in other
communities.  "Until we get something done at the national level,
there is no city or local ordinance that will be totally effective"
Kennedy said.  He went on to say that he believes the gun companies
selected Columbus' law to fight because "we were one of the first
ones, and we're a fairly large city."
     As seen in the article about Dublin's proposal, it followed
Kennedy's statements by 16 days.
     Half lies and truths not told were contained in Carmen's
article by her and O'Brien.  In a letter from Halbrook to Smolak on
June 23, 1992, Halbrook wrote: "The good news is that the court
found the Columbus ordinance to be unconstitutionally vague as
applied to the Springfield Armory M1 and M1A rifles, and issued an
injunction against enforcing the ordinance with respect to those
rifles.  This is probably the first time that any court has ever
found any firearm prohibition of this type to be unconstitutionally
vague, so that this represents a partial victory."
"The bad news is that the court found the other rifles exhibited in
court to be assault weapons under the ordinance.  Despite the fact
that Colt AR-15 by itself really means a machine gun, the court
found that term to include not only the Colt AR-15 Sporter, but
also the Colt Sporter.  The court acknowledged expert testimony
that radical differences existed between those designs, but somehow
concluded that the average person would think that the guns are
only slight modification or enhancements of the prohibited gun.
Likewise, the court ruled ignored BATF's finding that the
Springfield SAR-4800 is not an assault weapon, and found that it is
included in the term SAR-48."
Halbrook concluded his letter to Smolak by saying, "I am preparing
a motion to reconsider the finding concerning the Colt Sporter.  I
fully expect to appeal all portions of the court's opinion which
are adverse and are discussed above, as well as the court's earlier
dismissal of our Bill of Attainder count.  This appeal would be to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  We have thirty
days from the rendering of judgement (or from a denial of a motion
to reconsider) in this case to file our notice of appeal."
In Section II, part 6 of his Opinion and Order, Judge Graham wrote
that "the Court concludes that Columbus City Code 2323.01 and
2323.05 are unconstitutionally vague as applied to the Springfield
M1 and M1A rifles.  Defendants are hereby enjoined from applying or
enforcing the current ordinance with respect to these firearms."
It would seem that the Columbus Dispatch is strongly behind the
Columbus gun ban in that they allow their reporter, Barbara Carmen,
to report just half of the story.  The half that misleads the
law-abiding, gun-owning citizens of Columbus.  It also seems that
City Attorney Ron O'Brien is as anti-gun as is the majority of
Columbus City Council.  Members of PRO have helped him campaign to
retain his office of City Attorney.  Yet he tells half-truths and
omits the truth with the best of politicians.  And it would seem as
if Judge Graham passed the buck on ruling on the case to another
court so he would not feel any backlash.  He ruled just enough to
placate both sides.
Wrong.  When Judge Graham and City Attorney O'Brien come up for
re-election we will remember what they did and did not do in
regards with this suit against the Columbus gun ban.  Our support
will go accordingly.  One final comment is that you must be a
registered voter to vote, and then you must exercise that right so
that all elected officials will receive the message to leave our
cherished Second Amendment alone.


This is from:
    dennis@bluemoon.rn.com
---- The Soviet Union Died, But the Communists Live On ----