Ohio’s latest gun fight is playing out in the statehouse, not on the range. On April 15, the Republican majority in the Ohio Senate passed S.B. 278, a measure that would let private plaintiffs sue cities and townships for enacting local gun-safety rules and could expose municipalities to punitive damages and court costs. The proposal zeroes in on local safe-storage and related ordinances that cities including Columbus and Cincinnati have adopted and are currently defending in court. The vote sets up a statewide showdown over home rule and whether city halls can tailor public-safety laws to local problems.
S.B. 278 would amend the state's firearms preemption provisions to allow plaintiffs to seek "punitive or exemplary damages" against municipal corporations that pass gun-control measures, according to the Ohio Legislature. Legislative trackers list the bill as engrossed after the Senate vote on April 15, and bill text and summaries show the change would also let judges award money to plaintiffs and require municipalities to cover legal fees, according to LegiScan. Supporters say the language is meant to deter cities from adopting ordinances that conflict with state law.
Senate leaders are pitching the measure as a shield for lawful gun owners rather than a hammer aimed at city budgets. "Offering more avenues for damages allows for a stronger deterrent," Senate President Rob McColley said, and sponsor Sen. Terry Johnson argued the bill would help people enforce Second Amendment rights without shouldering heavy legal costs, as reported by WOSU Public Media.
Cities push back
Local officials see something very different. They argue S.B. 278 would gut home rule and punish cities trying to keep guns out of the hands of children and other unauthorized users. "The City ... strongly opposes this legislation, which would expose municipalities to punitive damages for local efforts to address gun violence," Cleveland spokesperson Tyler Sinclair said, according to News 5 Cleveland. Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said the city will "fight back" and remains committed to defending its safe-storage ordinance, per a press release from the City of Columbus. Cincinnati, which passed a safe-storage ordinance in 2023, has faced similar legal and political pushback, as reported by WCPO.
Legal questions
Critics say S.B. 278 adds a costly new weapon to the state's preemption framework and raises fresh constitutional questions about home rule. The statutes at issue are consolidated in Ohio Revised Code §9.68, which frames statewide uniformity for firearms laws; see Ohio Revised Code §9.68. The Ohio Mayors Alliance told the Senate Local Government Committee that expanding 9.68 to allow punitive damages would "undermine public safety" and likely violate the state constitution's home-rule protections, according to the written opponent testimony filed with the legislature.
What’s next
After clearing the Senate, the bill moves toward consideration in the Ohio House, where it will face another round of hearings and amendments. Legislative trackers list S.B. 278 as engrossed following the April 15 vote. If the House approves the change and the governor signs it, municipalities could face new lawsuits and potential payouts that opponents say will chill local policymaking. City officials and municipal groups say they are preparing to defend local ordinances in court if necessary, setting up a legal fight that could ultimately test where the balance of power lies between Columbus and city halls.
For now, municipal leaders say they will keep pressing for safe-storage and other local safety measures while state lawmakers press reforms supporters say protect gun owners' rights. The dispute over who gets to set Ohio's gun rules, state lawmakers or local governments, is likely to unfold in both legislative hearings and the courts in the months ahead.
