If city won't repeal bad law, will a 'note' in the law work?

MyWifeSaidYes · Jul 1, 2013

There is a suburb of Columbus that has a bad law or three on the books. They violate R.C. 9.68.

After bringing this up to council, the law director contacted me and said that council did not want to repeal any of the laws, but were willing to publish a note at the end of each ordinance that reads to this effect:

"To the extent that this ordinance is in violation of ORC 9.68, it is null and void."

The laws 1) restrict display of firearms in showcases or windows, 2) require permits for sale and purchase of firearms, and 3) restrict carry of firearms in parks.

So, IS modifying each of these ordinances with the above notation sufficient to not be in violation of 9.68?

Brian D. · Jul 1, 2013

Yikes I hate to play this same tune on the jukebox again, but...ORC 9.68 needs some enforcement 'teeth'. As in 'throw the mayor/council/law director in jail for refusing to comply' type teeth.

BriKuz · Jul 1, 2013

That "null and void" only makes sure that someone can still be arrested, and a vindictive prosecutor could even run a charge through the courts waiting for a "not-guilty"... thereby still costing an arestee money and time... I agree with Brian D.... 9.68 needs some teeth to get these local yokels interested in getting the laws/ordinances/regulations off the books.

davidmcbeth · Jul 1, 2013

If they voted on it then I think it would estoppel the enforcement. Of course, this would be an affirmative defense.

eye95 · Jul 1, 2013

Is there any portion of that ordinance that is not in violation of 9.68?

If not, this is clearly (as others have pointed out) an attempt to allow arrests and prosecutions under the ordinance, even in the full knowledge that the rap will eventually be beaten, but only after the citizen has been punished sufficiently for contempt of city council.

I suggest one of our legal professionals (not the poster above who fancies himself a legal expert, using fancy legal terms like "estoppel") writing a letter to the council informing them of any consequences to the city if their officers enforce an illegal ordinance that they knowingly left on the books. I hope that such consequences exist. I fear that they do not.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

eye95 · Jul 1, 2013

BTW, estoppel is a noun, not a verb, as it was misused above.

color of law or Werz: Could either of you expound on how the legal concept of estoppel would apply in this case, if at all? I freely admit that my knowledge of the term is limited to hearing it used on Law & Order. A truly wise person is not ignorant of his ignorance.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

MyWifeSaidYes · Jul 1, 2013

#1 restricts weapons in windows, so only the firearms part is in violation.

#2 & #3 are specific to firearms.

davidmcbeth · Jul 1, 2013

Nightmare said:
You may have meant estop rather than estoppel. It means to use estoppel as a means to an end, as a tool.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00209.htm

eye95 · Jul 1, 2013

MyWifeSaidYes said:
#1 restricts weapons in windows, so only the firearms part is in violation.

#2 & #3 are specific to firearms.

So then, part of the law is not in violation of 9.68. Someone in that city needs to demand that the police are trained in which parts of the law are "null and void," otherwise the city is encouraging officers to make mistakes to the legal detriment of the People in the city. Shame on them. They have been advised of the problem. They need to make a good-faith effort to get the law within the constraints of 9.68 and not rely on the police or the citizens to figure out what applies and what does not.

MyWifeSaidYes · Jul 1, 2013

I may have to go for a walk in the park this afternoon.

I wonder which city I should choose...decisions, decisions.

Hmm, better check my voice recorder batteries...

eye95 · Jul 1, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00209.htm

Do you really think that link is a response to your being called on your ignorant usage of the word estoppel? Read the first sentence. It shows the proper form of the word to be used as a verb. Your ignorance on the proper usage of this word as varying parts of speech make it reasonable to suspect your ignorance on the subject matter.

I look forward to real experts in the law discussing whether and how the concept of estoppel applies in the case of this bad law.

eye95 · Jul 1, 2013

MyWifeSaidYes said:
...Hmm, better check my voice recorder batteries...

Only if you are going to a laundromat. Sorry, Kuz, hadda do it.

MyWifeSaidYes · Jul 1, 2013

I set it up, you just spiked it!

davidmcbeth · Jul 1, 2013

eye95 said:
Do you really think that link is a response to your being called on your ignorant usage of the word estoppel? Read the first sentence. It shows the proper form of the word to be used as a verb. Your ignorance on the proper usage of this word as varying parts of speech make it reasonable to suspect your ignorance on the subject matter.

I look forward to real experts in the law discussing whether and how the concept of estoppel applies in the case of this bad law.

That aint you obviously...arguing the non-argument. Good job.

half_life1052 · Jul 1, 2013

Ianal

But I do read Groklaw ;-) I believe what he was trying to say was that by acknowledging that the ordinances are in violation that they would be estopped (meaning precluded in this case) from claiming any kind of immunity.

Will that save you the ride downtown? -- No
Will it cause the prosecutor to nolle it ? -- Probably not, in for a penny . . .
Will it help later when the victim is shooting for damages? -- I should hope so but you will have to ask your lawyer

One might wonder if they were to do that, and a skilled lawyer was able to peel back the veil, could criminal charges be pursued against counsel/police/prosecutor ?

I am probably way off base legally speaking but throwing my thinking out there sometimes results in a much appreciated education.

eye95 · Jul 1, 2013

half_life1052 said:
But I do read Groklaw ;-) I believe what he was trying to say was that by acknowledging that the ordinances are in violation that they would be estopped (meaning precluded in this case) from claiming any kind of immunity.

Will that save you the ride downtown? -- No
Will it cause the prosecutor to nolle it ? -- Probably not, in for a penny . . .
Will it help later when the victim is shooting for damages? -- I should hope so but you will have to ask your lawyer

One might wonder if they were to do that, and a skilled lawyer was able to peel back the veil, could criminal charges be pursued against counsel/police/prosecutor ?

I am probably way off base legally speaking but throwing my thinking out there sometimes results in a much appreciated education.

Actually, he wasn't talking immunity at all. He was just blindly repeating a legal word he heard that I suspect he thought was just a fancy to say "stopped."

Read some of his other stuff. You'll realize the he constantly talks through his hat and can't support a single legal contention he makes.

I would rather hear from color of law or Werz regarding whether or not immunity for the city would be pierced. I suspect not, but I will admit ignorance of the law in this regard--something that other poster foolishly never does.

davidmcbeth · Jul 1, 2013

eye95 said:
Actually, he wasn't talking immunity at all. He was just blindly repeating a legal word he heard that I suspect he thought was just a fancy to say "stopped."

Read some of his other stuff. You'll realize the he constantly talks through his hat and can't support a single legal contention he makes.

I would rather hear from color of law or Werz regarding whether or not immunity for the city would be pierced. I suspect not, but I will admit ignorance of the law in this regard--something that other poster foolishly never does.

Ha, eye is funny ... usually wrong, but funny

OMG you don't "pierce" the immunity .... you pierce a corporate veil ... that's a different animal ...

I could attack all of eye's posts if I want to ... not the brightest bulb in the box. And I have won cases against guberment officials in their personal capacity .. all by my lonesome pro se self w/o help from eye.

eye95 · Jul 1, 2013

Folks, don't take my word for it. Just Google "pierce immunity" lawsuit and see what comes up. The phrase is routinely used in the fashion I used it.

That poster is pathetic.

I'll just wait for the folks who know the law to chime in. This thing ain't worth the effort.

half_life1052 · Jul 1, 2013

Ianal

Poking around I begin to see that maybe my last thoughts were more of a pipe dream. Connick V Thompson gives me some clues as to how it would turn out. Essentially you would have to prove a pattern of abuse.

davidmcbeth · Jul 2, 2013

eye95 said:
Folks, don't take my word for it. Just Google "pierce immunity" lawsuit and see what comes up. The phrase is routinely used in the fashion I used it.

That poster is pathetic.

I'll just wait for the folks who know the law to chime in. This thing ain't worth the effort.

That's right, move along monkey boy...

If city won't repeal bad law, will a 'note' in the law work?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Banned

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Regular Member

Banned