The Lorain Weapons Ordinance: How a Quiet City Hall Maneuver Became a Constitutional Fight
What happens when a city tries to rewrite criminal law that the State of Ohio has already settled?
INTRODUCTION
There are moments in local government where something small, obscure, and hidden in the back of an agenda ends up exposing the entire structure. A single amendment. A sudden emergency clause. A rush through council with no real explanation and no real review.
That is exactly what happened in Lorain, Ohio, when the city quietly amended Chapter 549 of its codified ordinances. It happened quickly. It happened quietly. It happened under the cover of an emergency declaration. And if you were not watching closely, you never would have known how drastically this city attempted to rewrite state firearms law.
This Substack is the companion investigation to tonight’s 1-hour podcast episode of Politics Unplugged. It takes the deep dive you just heard and expands it into the legal, constitutional, and political landscape that brought us here.
If you think this was just a routine weapons ordinance, you are in for a surprise.
THE AMENDMENT NO ONE SAW COMING
The government passed the ordinance under an emergency clause. Emergency powers allow council to bypass the standard three readings required on normal legislation. That means no meaningful public comment, no extended debate, and no opportunity for residents to spot contradictions or legal defects.
The amendment changed multiple sections of Chapter 549. It elevated penalties for municipal concealed-carry offenses far beyond what state law allows. It created new categories of prohibited conduct. It raised minor weapons violations such as slingshots, air guns, and bows to the highest misdemeanor category available in Ohio. It rewrote how the city treats dangerous ordnance. It altered punishment schemes, classifications, and licensing consequences that exist exclusively under state authority.
None of these changes were random. None of them were harmless. Every change competed directly with the Ohio Revised Code, either by expanding penalties beyond state limits or by creating criminal exposure where the General Assembly did not.
The public barely saw it.
But I did.
THE LEGAL FOUNDATION THE CITY BROKE
To understand why this ordinance cannot stand, you first have to understand state preemption.
Ohio Revised Code 9.68 is one of the most important public safety laws in the state. It says that the people of Ohio have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It says that local governments are prohibited from creating their own weapons regulations that differ from the uniform statewide system crafted by the legislature. It says that any contradictory municipal ordinance is invalid.
The Ohio Supreme Court upheld this law. Twice. The court declared that R.C. 9.68 is a valid general law, meaning it supersedes home-rule authority. In plain language, that means cities cannot create their own firearm laws beyond what the state already regulates.
Yet Lorain tried.
Here is where the breakdown begins.
The city escalated penalties for concealed weapons offenses despite those penalties being defined entirely by the legislature in ORC 2923.12 and 2923.128. The city expanded dangerous-ordnance-related offenses despite those being governed by ORC 2923.17 through 2923.19. The city created broader versions of “unlawful transactions in weapons” even though ORC 2923.20 already defines that statewide. And the city attempted to criminalize conduct involving slingshots, bows, and air guns at a level that exceeds many state firearms penalties.
Preemption exists to stop this exact behavior.
Lorain ignored it.
THE DEVICES THAT BECAME CRIMES OVERNIGHT
One of the areas where the ordinance becomes the most alarming is in its treatment of non-firearm devices. Items that the state of Ohio does not classify as firearms. Items that are not considered dangerous ordnance. Items that routinely appear in backyards, competitions, hunting stands, and sporting events.
Slingshots.
Compound bows.
Crossbows.
Air rifles.
Pellet guns.
Most Ohioans would never consider these criminal objects. Many parents buy them for their kids. Many hunters use them responsibly. Many sports clubs teach proper training and safety.
Lorain’s ordinance turned violations involving these devices into first degree misdemeanors. That is the same level of penalty used for serious crimes that can carry six months in jail and high fines. Under the city’s version of the law, your teenager using an air rifle in your backyard is now one mistake away from a criminal record that can follow him forever.
State law does not classify these items with that level of severity. Lorain did.
And no one at City Hall explained why.
THE CHILLING EFFECT THAT FOLLOWED
When a city threatens prosecution for conduct that the state considers lawful, ordinary people change their behavior. They stop doing things that are allowed. They avoid activity that is protected. They remain silent. They self-censor. They comply out of fear of the unknown.
Courts call this the chilling effect.
It has been recognized for decades.
It is a constitutional injury.
And it happened in Lorain immediately.
People who transport firearms legally under state law now fear that Lorain’s expanded CCW language could be used against them. Hunters with bows worry that a misunderstanding could lead to a criminal charge. Concealed-carry license holders fear municipal classification schemes that could affect state licensing even though the city cannot lawfully do that. Parents worry about their children’s pellet rifles, which suddenly became a first degree misdemeanor offense. Residents with lawfully secured firearms fear misapplication of Lorain’s expanded dangerous-ordnance provisions.
This is not hypothetical.
This is happening.
This is exactly why preemption exists.
THE COLUMBUS PARALLEL
Lorain is not the first city to try to out-legislate the state. Columbus attempted to impose a high-capacity magazine ban, a storage mandate, and a licensing-related enforcement scheme of its own. That case became Doe v. Columbus, and the Buckeye Institute secured a preliminary injunction stopping enforcement weeks after the ordinance passed.
The legal reasoning in Columbus applies almost perfectly to Lorain. Both involve municipal attempts to regulate weapons in ways the state prohibits. Both involve penalty increases. Both involve expansions of state classifications. Both rely on emergency clauses to bypass scrutiny. Both attempt to alter the behavior of law-abiding gun owners. Both create chilling effects. Both contradict R.C. 9.68.
The difference is that Lorain’s version is even more extreme in certain areas.
Columbus banned magazines.
Lorain rewrote entire classes of criminal weapons offenses.
Columbus altered storage requirements.
Lorain created new categories of high-level misdemeanors.
Columbus pushed licensing boundaries.
Lorain elevated penalties far beyond state law.
This lawsuit was inevitable.
WHY THE CASE MATTERS
People often hear “weapons ordinance” and assume it targets the worst elements of society. What they do not realize is that overbroad ordinances almost always land on the people who follow the rules. The city did not create new felony consequences for violent offenders. It created new misdemeanor pathways for law-abiding residents. It increased penalties for otherwise lawful conduct. It expanded definitions beyond the state’s authority. It threatened concealed handgun license holders. It imposed burdens on hunters, parents, collectors, sportsmen, and disabled citizens who rely on certain equipment for safety.
In short, it punished people who already comply with the law.
When a city creates that kind of environment, trust erodes. People stop participating. They stop asking questions. They stop attending meetings. They stop believing the law works for them.
That is how silence becomes a government’s best weapon.
This case is about breaking that silence.
THE ROAD AHEAD
The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Lorain’s amendments are invalid. It seeks a permanent injunction preventing enforcement. It seeks recognition that R.C. 9.68 is binding and cities cannot escape it. It seeks accountability from a government that rushed an unlawful ordinance through without understanding the consequences.
This will not be quick.
It will not be quiet.
It will not be easy.
But the law is clear.
The authority is clear.
The constitutional stakes are clear.
And the public deserves clarity.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
If tonight’s podcast or this Substack leaves you with one thought, let it be this. Your city government has far more power than you realize. And when it exceeds that power, it is your responsibility to pull it back. Lorain’s weapons ordinance is not just a legal issue. It is a reminder of what happens when a city stops listening to its residents and starts legislating in the shadows.
I believe in transparency.
I believe in accountability.
And I believe that when government breaks the law, the people must be willing to challenge it.
Thank you for reading.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for standing for your rights.
— Aaron Christopher Knapp
CALL TO ACTION
Subscribe to support investigative reporting in Lorain County.
Share this Substack.
Share the podcast.
Help bring transparency to local government
About The Author
