Opinion
No. 92663.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 3, 2011.
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV-618492.
AFFIRMED.
Robert J. Triozzi, Director of Law, Gary S. Singletary, Assistant Director of Law, Attorneys for Appellant.
Mike DeWine, Attorney General of Ohio, Pearl M. Chin, Craig A. Calcaterra, Assistant Attorneys General, Benjamin Mizer, Solicitor General, Attorneys for Appellee.
Frederick E. Kalmbach, Daniel T. Ellis, Lydy Moan Ltd., William F. Abrams, Karen Lu, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Mitchell H. Banchefsky, Stephen J. Smith, David Cannon, Elizabeth Rumsey, Three Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, California, James N. Kline, Ulmer Berne LLP, Max Rothal, Amici Curiae.
BEFORE: Cooney, P.J., Stewart, J., and E. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶ 1} This case is here upon remand from the Ohio Supreme Court for this court to address the remaining assignment of error pursuant to Cleveland v. State, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6318, ¶ 35.
{¶ 2} The City argues in its third assignment of error that Sub. H.B. No. 347 violates the one-subject rule found in the Ohio Constitution. Section 15(D), Article II of the Ohio Constitution provides, "No bill shall contain more than one subject * * *." Specifically, the City argues that R.C. 9.68, a part of Sub. H.B. 347, "does not even attempt to implement actual firearm regulations — it merely seeks to diminish and eliminate local authority." The Ohio Supreme Court, however, held in Cleveland v. State at syllabus, that "R.C. 9.68 is a general law that displaces municipal firearm ordinances and does not unconstitutionally infringe on municipal home rule authority." The court found it was part of a statewide comprehensive legislative enactment. Id. at ¶ 25. Therefore, we find no violation of the one-subject rule.
{¶ 3} The third assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 4} The trial court's judgment that R.C. 9.68 is a general law and that Sub. H.B. No. 347 did not violate the single subject rule is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MELODY J. STEWART, J., and EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR.