FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Lorain Residents Appeal Dismissal of Firearm Preemption Case, Raise Concerns Over Court’s Handling of Verified Claims
By Aaron Christopher Knapp, BSSW, LSW, CDCA(p)
Investigative Journalist | Founder, Lorain Politics Unplugged
Knapp Unplugged Media LLC
A DECISION THAT AVOIDS THE CORE ISSUE
The recent dismissal of the firearm preemption case against the City of Lorain is not the end of the matter. It is the beginning of appellate review.
At its core, this case presents a straightforward legal question. Can a municipality impose criminal penalties on conduct that Ohio law permits, and can residents challenge that conflict before they are forced to face arrest and prosecution.
The trial court did not answer that question. Instead, it dismissed the case at the threshold for lack of standing.
That decision does not resolve the legality of the ordinance. It avoids it.
And in doing so, it shifts the issue to the appellate court, where the proper legal standard can be applied.
THIS OUTCOME WAS ANTICIPATED
This result was not unexpected.
From the outset, this case was structured with the understanding that appellate review would likely be required. The complaint was verified. Individual Plaintiffs were named. Sworn statements were submitted specifically to establish standing and demonstrate present, real-world impact.
The record was developed deliberately.
The conflict with state law was identified.
The ordinance’s effect on lawful conduct was documented.
The legal basis for declaratory relief was clearly presented.
This was not a speculative claim. It was a structured, documented case prepared for judicial review.
The dismissal does not end that process. It advances it.
SWORN FACTS WERE PRESENTED
Each Plaintiff submitted a verification under penalty of perjury.
Those sworn statements establish that:
They lawfully possess and carry firearms under Ohio law
They are subject to the City’s ordinance
The ordinance imposes criminal penalties
They have altered their behavior to avoid enforcement
These are not generalized concerns or policy arguments. These are factual assertions made under oath.
At the pleading stage, courts are required to accept those facts as true. The question is not whether the Plaintiffs will ultimately prevail. The question is whether those facts, if true, establish a legal claim.
Here, those facts describe a present and ongoing impact on the Plaintiffs’ conduct.
Despite that, the case was dismissed.
A PRE-ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGE SHOULD NOT REQUIRE ARREST
Ohio law does not require citizens to violate a criminal ordinance in order to challenge it.
The Declaratory Judgment Act exists to prevent that exact scenario. It allows courts to resolve disputes where a law currently affects a person’s rights or conduct, before that person is forced to risk prosecution.
In this case, the Plaintiffs did precisely what the law contemplates.
They identified a conflict between state law and a municipal ordinance.
They documented how that ordinance affects their conduct.
They sought judicial review before being subjected to enforcement.
The dismissal suggests that something more is required.
That position raises a fundamental question. If individuals who have sworn that they are currently altering their behavior to avoid criminal penalties do not have standing, then what is required.
UNIFORM STATE LAW AND LOCAL CONFLICT
Ohio has made clear that firearm regulation is a matter of statewide concern.
State law provides a uniform framework governing the possession and carrying of firearms. Residents are permitted to carry without a license, and the General Assembly has expressly prohibited municipalities from creating a patchwork of conflicting local regulations.
The ordinance at issue imposes additional restrictions, expands prohibited conduct, and increases penalties beyond those established by state law.
The effect is immediate.
Conduct that is lawful under Ohio law becomes subject to criminal liability within the City of Lorain.
That is not a theoretical concern. It is a present condition that requires residents to either change their behavior or risk prosecution.
SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THE CASE WAS RESOLVED
The dismissal raises legitimate concerns about whether the record and controlling law were fully applied at the pleading stage.
Courts are required to accept sworn factual allegations as true when evaluating a motion to dismiss. In this case, Plaintiffs presented verified statements establishing that the ordinance currently affects their conduct and exposes them to criminal penalties.
Despite those sworn facts, the case was dismissed for lack of standing.
When a case involving verified allegations of present harm is dismissed at the threshold, it raises important questions about how the governing legal standard was applied.
Those questions are not conclusions. They are issues that now require appellate review.
A RECORD BUILT FOR APPEAL
This case was prepared with the expectation that appellate review would be necessary.
The pleadings were structured to create a clear record.
Who the Plaintiffs are
What conduct they engage in
How the ordinance affects that conduct
Why the issue is ripe for judicial determination
Because of that, the issue now before the appellate court is focused and well defined.
It is a legal question grounded in sworn facts.
It concerns the proper application of standing and pre-enforcement review.
And it is ready for full appellate consideration.
THE APPEAL MOVES FORWARD
A Notice of Appeal will be filed, and the matter will proceed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals.
The appellate court will review the issue independently, without deference to the trial court’s legal conclusions.
The question before that court is straightforward.
Whether individuals who are presently altering their behavior to avoid criminal penalties have the right to challenge a municipal ordinance before being prosecuted.
That is a question of law.
And it is a question that will now be addressed.
FINAL THOUGHT
This case has never been about speculation. It has never been about theory.
It is about whether the law applies as written.
If state law is uniform, then it must be uniform.
If citizens are permitted to seek declaratory relief, then that right must exist before prosecution.
If sworn facts establish present harm, then those facts must be given effect.
The appellate process exists to resolve exactly these issues.
And that process is now underway.
MEDIA CONTACT
Aaron Christopher Knapp
Knapp Unplugged Media LLC
Lorain Politics Unplugged
About The Author
