COLUMBUS, Ohio — Columbus is actively contesting a court-imposed preliminary injunction that has put a temporary hold on its new firearm regulations established in 2022. These regulations include restrictions on high-capacity magazines and mandatory secure gun storage in homes where children are present. The enforcement of these laws was paused following legal challenges from opponents who claim the measures infringe upon constitutional rights.
The city has taken its fight against the injunction through the appellate court system and has now reached the Ohio Supreme Court. The higher court is slated to deliberate on the matter in the upcoming case, Doe v. Columbus.
The opposition consists of six individuals who argue that the laws in question violate the constitutional right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution and a specific state statute. They believe the injunction is crucial to prevent the enactment of unconstitutional laws until a final judgment is rendered.
Originally filed in Delaware County Common Pleas Court, the case against the Columbus gun laws was not permitted to be moved to Franklin County for consolidation with a similar case, as Columbus had requested. After the initial court granted the injunction sought by the plaintiffs, Columbus’s appeal to the Fifth District Court of Appeals was dismissed in November 2023, with the court agreeing with the plaintiffs that the injunction did not constitute a final, appealable order.
Now before the Ohio Supreme Court, the central issue revolves around whether an effective remedy exists for Columbus through an appeal post-final judgment of the case. Columbus argues that the injunction severely harms public safety by delaying laws intended to prevent gun violence. The city insists that irreversible damage could occur in the interim, which cannot be undone even if the laws are later upheld.
In support of Columbus, amicus briefs have been filed backing the city’s right to enforce its laws immediately. On the other hand, the plaintiffs maintain that the injunction merely preserves the status quo, preventing harm from the enforcement of potentially unconstitutional laws. They also highlight practical concerns, suggesting that allowing the government to consistently appeal such injunctions immediately could lead to extended legal proceedings and delay final decisions on the core issues of the case.