Buckeye Firearms Found. Inc. v. City of Cincinnati
| Decision Date | 25 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. C-190569,C-190569 |
| Citation | 163 N.E.3d 68,2020 Ohio 5422 |
| Parties | BUCKEYE FIREARMS FOUNDATION INC., Ohioans for Concealed Carry, and Jordan Telting, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. City of CINCINNATI, Ohio, and Paula Boggs Muething, in her official capacity as city solicitor, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
{¶1} The issue presented in this appeal is whether the city of Cincinnati exceeded its home-rule authority by enacting a municipal ordinance banning the possession and transfer of firearm "trigger activators." Because the ordinance conflicts with a state law governing an individual's rights to ownership and possession of firearms, we determine that the municipal ordinance is an invalid exercise of home-rule authority. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶2} In May 2018, Cincinnati City Council adopted an emergency ordinance banning "trigger activators" within the city ("Ordinance 91-2018"). Ordinance 91-2018 defines "trigger activators" as "a device designed or functioning to accelerate the rate of fire of a firearm to approximate an automatic weapon, including bump stocks, trigger cranks, slide fire devices, and other similar accessories." Any person who unlawfully owns, possesses, sells, or uses a trigger activator within the city would be guilty of a first-degree misdemeanor.
{¶3} Shortly after the passage of Ordinance 91-2018, plaintiffs-appellees Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Inc., ("Buckeye Firearms") Ohioans for Concealed Carry, and Jordan Telting (collectively the "Firearm Plaintiffs") sent a letter to the city demanding that it take action to invalidate or enjoin the enforcement of Ordinance 91-2018. The Firearm Plaintiffs contended that Ordinance 91-2018 conflicted with R.C. 9.68, a state statute recognizing an individual's right to possess firearms and their components in accordance with state and federal law. The city declined to take action, and the Firearm Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against defendants-appellants the city of Cincinnati and former city solicitor Paula Boggs Muething (collectively "the city") seeking a declaratory judgment that Ordinance 91-2018 conflicted with state law and an injunction against any enforcement of Ordinance 91-2018 by the city.
{¶4} After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the Firearm Plaintiffs. The parties exchanged discovery, including deposing expert witnesses, and the parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
{¶5} In their motion for summary judgment, the Firearm Plaintiffs introduced evidence as to the effect of Ordinance 91-2018. Buckeye Firearms introduced deposition testimony and affidavits from its corporate representative, its president and board member, and a volunteer website manager. The evidence showed that Buckeye Firearms engages in activities that advance the rights of gun owners throughout Ohio, including educational activities like school-security programs. Buckeye Firearms also hosts and operates an annual fundraising event called the Buckeye Bash, during which Buckeye Firearms raffles firearms and ammunition as prizes. In connection with the Buckeye Bash, Buckeye Firearms stores and transfers firearms and ammunition. Buckeye Firearms argued that Ordinance 91-2018 negatively impacted its ability to raffle firearms to people in Cincinnati.
{¶6} Similar to Buckeye Firearms, Ohioans for Concealed Carry is also a nonprofit corporation that engages in various activities to advance gun rights, including legislation, litigation, educational grants, and fundraising. Finally, Telting testified that he works as a security guard in Cincinnati, and that he also owns a "trigger activator," namely a binary trigger. As a result of Ordinance 91-2018, Telting must store his binary trigger outside city limits.
{¶7} The Firearm Plaintiffs also introduced testimony from Jeff Steley, a firearms expert, who explained that "trigger activators" are integral parts of a firearm, because they affect the function of the firearm. Steley explained that trigger activators are devices installed on firearms, such as the Armalite rifle system. According to Steley, the Armalite rifle system has a modular design allowing the consumer to replace or customize rifle parts, such as stocks and trigger mechanisms. Steley also testified that consumers can have firearms custom built with trigger activators. For instance, a consumer could have a firearm custom built with a binary trigger as a "drop-in" trigger mechanism, where the binary trigger is the only trigger, without which the firearm would not operate. Based on Steley's testimony, the Firearm Plaintiffs argued that "trigger activators" can be "components," and thus Ordinance 91-2018 conflicts with R.C. 9.68.
{¶8} The city also introduced its own firearms expert, James Yurgealitis. Yurgealitis testified as a former federal agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Yurgealitis explained that trigger activators are generally "aftermarket" accessories to firearms that change the rate of performance of a firearm from how it was originally manufactured. Yurgealitis admitted, however, that certain firearms are manufactured with trigger activators.
{¶9} The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the Firearm Plaintiffs and held that Ordinance 91-2018 conflicted with R.C. 9.68, and thus the city exceeded its home-rule powers. The trial court also granted the Firearm Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees and costs. This appeal by the city ensued.
{¶10} In its first assignment of error, the city argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Buckeye Firearms because Buckeye Firearms lacks standing.
{¶11} In order for a trial court to have jurisdiction over an action, the matter must be justiciable, and "[a] matter is justiciable only if the complaining party has standing to sue." ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. JobsOhio , 139 Ohio St.3d 520, 2014-Ohio-2382, 13 N.E.3d 1101, ¶ 11, citing Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald , 134 Ohio St.3d 13, 2012-Ohio-5017, 979 N.E.2d 1214, ¶ 41. Standing to bring a lawsuit requires litigants to show that "they have suffered ‘(1) an injury that is (2) fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct, and (3) likely to be redressed by the requested relief.’ " ProgressOhio.org at ¶ 7, quoting Moore v. Middletown , 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, 975 N.E.2d 977, ¶ 22. Standing is "an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992).
{¶12} In their amended complaint, the Firearm Plaintiffs brought two causes of action: (1) a taxpayer action under R.C. 733.59 and a request for injunctive relief under R.C. Chapter 2727, and (2) declaratory relief under R.C. Chapter 2721 and R.C. 9.68.
{¶13} The city argues that Buckeye Firearms lacks standing in the taxpayer action filed under R.C. 733.59 because Buckeye Firearms is a nonprofit association and not a taxpayer. The Firearm Plaintiffs do not allege that Buckeye Firearms is a plaintiff in the statutory taxpayer action. They allege in their amended complaint that Telting is a resident and taxpayer of the city, and that he made a written demand to the city under the taxpayer statute. Thus, Buckeye Firearms was not a plaintiff in the taxpayer action, and we need not determine whether it had standing to bring that claim.
{¶14} The city also argues that Buckeye Firearms lacks standing under R.C. Chapter 2721, Ohio's Declaratory Judgment Act, and R.C. 9.68. Firearm Plaintiffs allege in their amended complaint that Buckeye Firearms brings its action on behalf of its members. "[A]n association has standing on behalf of its members when ‘(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.’ " Ohio Contrs. Assn. v. Bicking , 71 Ohio St.3d 318, 320, 643 N.E.2d 1088 (1994), quoting Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm. , 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977).
{¶15} According to the city, Buckeye Firearms does not meet the test for associational standing because it does not keep a membership list, it does not require membership dues, and its executive director testified that he considers all Ohio gun owners to be members of the organization. The city does not point to any authority requiring an association to have paid membership or official membership lists in order to establish standing to sue. Moreover, the record demonstrates that although Buckeye Firearms does not keep an official list of members, it does have an email listserv and sends electronic newsletters to those on the listserv. The record also indicates that Buckeye Firearms has an executive director and board members, as well as a website manager. Thus, Buckeye Firearms has demonstrated that it is an association with members.
{¶16} We further determine that Buckeye Firearms has established the three elements required for associational standing. Buckeye Firearms' executive director, its website manager, as well as a third member filed affidavits claiming that they had been negatively impacted by Ordinance 91-2018, because they could not possess trigger activators within Cincinnati. Given the affidavits of Buckeye Firearms' members, Buckeye Firearms meets the first prong of the associational-standing test, which requires that its members would...
To continue reading
Request your trial