Trending
There are unlimited and varied scenarios for setup of Ohio's municipal buildings and courtrooms.
That's why we support allowing each municipality to view the situation and make its own decision on whether to permit people to bring firearms into the community's public buildings.
This issue is a topic of debate after the Ohio House recently voted 57-29 to make an exception, under specific circumstances, to state law banning possession of firearms in a building that houses a courtroom. The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration.
If passed, it would be up to each community to decide whether to allow weapons inside when court is not in session.
The law would not affect common pleas courthouses. No weapons are allowed in courthouses such as those, and the law would not change that.
Warren Municipal Court Judge Thomas Gysegem, for instance, is adamant in his opposition.
"Tempers can be at a very high level because they never simmer down from what happened," Gysegem recently said. "We have gunpowder parties down here every day and you start having people armed, it's bringing a match to a gunpowder party."
Indeed, we fully understand Gysegem's strong feelings. But we also understand that others might feel very differently about the issue.
Supporters, in fact, have described the legislation as a "victory for both Second Amendment rights and responsible governance."
We consistently argue in favor of grass-roots, local governance, and we believe this is the perfect example of an issue that can and should be handled locally, rather than on the state level.
In fact, legislation that passed the House would allow the city the opportunity to enact an ordinance allowing weapons in a governmental building that houses a court as long as the court and office of the clerk of courts are "not in operation at the time."
In Struthers, for instance, Law Director John Zomoida Jr. is not necessarily in favor of allowing firearms in that city's municipal building. However, like us, he supports the ability of "giving the local governments the option of doing what they want to do. Then, the city council, the administration, can decide what they think is best for their community. You could always say no -- we don't want guns in the building," Zomoida said.
"I would rather have that decision made by the councilmen, who the public has a little more control over as opposed to state representatives. You lose a little bit of control as you get bigger. The same thing with the federal government."
We agree, and maintain this important issue could and should be decided locally. Let leaders of each local jurisdiction weigh the situation and make a decision that they think is best for them.
Struthers' building is similar to that of the city building in Lebanon, Ohio, where the conversation of whether citizens should have the right to carry firearms in city buildings came about in 2020.
State Rep. Adam Mathews, a Republican from Lebanon, was the primary sponsor of the bill that he said was designed for smaller communities using buildings for multiple functions.
Lebanon City Council approved an ordinance in March 2020 giving concealed carry license holders permission to carry firearms into the city building during council meetings. The building also doubles as a municipal court.
Lebanon City Council member Joe Shafer said he wanted to be able to bring his firearm to council meetings to protect himself in case an active shooter targeted council members or others in the meeting, according to a 2020 story in the Dayton Daily News.
Shafer said he did not want the city to have to pay the cost to have security at council meetings.
Lebanon Vice Mayor Mark Messer expressed concern that the signs prohibiting firearms in the Lebanon city building could have the opposite effect on someone bent on violence, seeing a gun-free zone as an inviting place to wreak havoc.
Gysegem said he understands the bill's language would require a city council to affirmatively pass the bill to make it apply to a local community. That's something, he said, he seriously doubts would happen in Warren -- considering council's current makeup.
Frankly, that is the point.
This important issue could and should be decided locally. Let leaders of each local jurisdiction weigh the situation and make a decision they think is best for them and their community.