The following article was originally published in the Ohio Capital Journal and published on News5Cleveland.com under a content-sharing agreement.
Ohio lawmakers are trying once more to pass a controversial firearms measure building a wall between local officers and federal agencies.
To supporters, the bill is an expression of the anti-commandeering doctrine found in the Tenth Amendment. Opponents argue it’s a new attempt at nullification and its restrictions on federal cooperation will kneecap cops and prosecutors.
What’s in the bill
At the heart of Ohio House Bill 382, known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act, is a prohibition on state and local law enforcement agencies working with federal counterparts to enforce federal laws or regulations.
The bill allows ordinary citizens to sue Ohio agencies over alleged violations and imposes a $50,000 civil penalty per occurrence.
The driving idea behind the proposal is that states have the right and obligation to uphold firearms rights against any threat — notably, “foreign or domestic.”
Backers believe agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have instituted regulations that violate Second Amendment rights, and that those restrictions are unconstitutional given the Tenth Amendment’s constraints on federal authority.
“This bill is a serious and necessary response to very real threats,” Ohio Gun Owners Executive Director Chris Dorr argued in a press release. He bragged that already 35 lawmakers have signed on to the proposal, “standing shoulder-to-shoulder with gun owners and making it clear: Ohio will not be a tool for federal tyranny.”
Although Dorr and other supporters reach for lofty arguments, the proposal’s inciting incident was relatively banal. The ATF under former President Joe Biden moved to restrict pistol braces.
Historically, it’s an accessory helping people with disabilities steady their aim, but in more recent years the braces have morphed into an attachment that allows a shooter to brace a weapon against their shoulder like a rifle.
The ATF’s final rule left out the former but required gun owners with the latter to register the weapon, alter it (removing the brace or elongating the barrel), or destroy the weapon.
The latest bill includes a provision meant to hamper enforcement of pistol brace regulations in Ohio, but Courts have since put the rule on hold. The current Trump administration also seems unlikely to defend it, but Dorr insists that’s no reason not to act.
“Pro-gun momentum like we are seeing under President Trump doesn’t last forever,” Dorr argued. “We have the votes. We have the people. We have the support. Now is the time to act — not next year, not after the next election — now.”
Where things get murky
The latest iteration of the proposal also brings back a section of legislative findings — essentially a statement of purpose written into statute. Among its assertions, federal powers not explicitly granted in the Constitution “are unauthoritative and of no force;” the supremacy clause does not extend to firearm restrictions “within the borders of Ohio;” and federal authority over commerce and taxes “merely identify” the government’s “limited powers,” rather than allowing it to “diminish” the right to bear arms.
Because the separation of powers doctrine generally places that kind of legal interpretation under the court’s purview, that section was quickly removed the last time lawmakers debated the bill.
Still, the new proposal attempts to distance itself from some of the more controversial provisions in the previous version. For instance, a prohibition on state and local agencies hiring people who previously worked for the federal government does not appear in the latest draft.
And for all the bill’s bright line assertions about where federal authorities ends, several carveouts underscore that it’s just not that simple.
State and local agencies rely on federal support on a daily basis — the national ballistics database, which helps draw links between firearms used in multiple crimes, offers just one example. Interagency task forces are crucial in drug and human trafficking investigations.
Both examples were leveled by opponents last time the bill was offered, and sponsors amended the bill to allow them. However, critics argue those tweaks can’t redeem a flawed proposal.
Lou Tobin heads up the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association. In an email he said he appreciates the sponsor “trying to address” problems that came up before. In practice, though, he doesn’t think the changes will make a difference.
Pointing to the ballistics database, Tobin said, “it only allows that ‘to enforce the laws of the state or a political subdivision’ when entering information into a national database necessarily assists federal law enforcement, too.”
“Allowing us to refer violent felonies to federal prosecutors when there are ‘ancillary’ weapons violations sounds like a compromise,” Tobin added, “but what ‘ancillary’ means in this context remains unclear. The bill says explicitly that it ‘shall be construed strictly against the state.’ So the bill is still going to have a chilling effect on law enforcement efforts to address violent crime in this state because people aren’t going to want to be sued.”
Erick Bellomy’s father was shot and killed in a botched robbery in 2017.
He now heads up the Ohio chapter of Brady United Against Gun Violence and said he’s “appalled” at lawmakers continuing to advance legislation like the Second Amendment Preservation Act.
“Law enforcement officers and police chiefs across the state have warned this bill makes it harder—not easier—to keep our communities safe,” he added. “When law enforcement and public safety leaders oppose a bill, we should listen.”
Bellomy criticized the legislation’s carveouts as “confusing and contradictory,” warning they “threaten to paralyze law enforcement.”
Like Tobin, he criticized provisions limiting cooperation with federal prosecutors unless gun charges are only “ancillary” to the case. The restriction is “so vague that it may prevent prosecutors from pursuing justice in violent cases involving guns,” Bellomy argued.
If lawmakers want to protect Ohioans, Bellomy said, they should focus on safe storage, extreme risk protection orders and community violence intervention efforts.
“These are real, evidence-based strategies that reduce gun deaths—without infringing on anyone’s Second Amendment rights,” he argued.
“Let me be clear: no one wants to take guns away from law-abiding citizens,” Bellomy added. “What we want is to ensure that guns are stored safely, used responsibly, and kept out of the hands of those with malicious intent or a history of violence.”
