Ohio lawmaker proposes monetary damages be awarded to citizens challenging local gun regulations
An Ohio lawmaker wants to punish cities for passing local gun ordinances by forcing them to pay monetary damages to any citizens who successfully challenge them.
State Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, has filed legislation allowing private citizens to sue cities for “punitive or exemplary damages.”
The change applies to Ohio’s preemption statute — asserting state control over the right to regulate firearms.
The law already allows citizens to sue for damages, but Johnson’s proposal makes a five word amendment expanding the scope of what they can ask for.
The bill doesn’t explicitly define “punitive” or “exemplary” damages, but generally speaking, they’re monetary judgements meant to punish a wrongdoer and make an example of them to others.
‘The line must be drawn’
Johnson introduced Ohio Senate Bill 278 last week, portraying it as a way to level the playing field between citizens and government.
“Our citizens should feel emboldened if they are to overturn these unlawful regulations without having to face financial burden for doing what is right,” Johnson said.
“Municipalities, cities, that sort of thing, have deep pockets and lots of lawyers, and the average citizen does not.”
Ohio’s Constitution grants broad authority over local matters to local governments, and Johnson insists he’s a strong believer in that home rule principle.
“However, the line must be drawn at anything which violates the Constitution,” he said.
The state law preempting local gun ordinances, which Johnson’s bill would amend, is a statute — not part of the constitution.
By his own admission, Johnson’s bill is largely a response to local gun laws passed by the city of Columbus.
In 2022, the city approved ordinances prohibiting large capacity magazines and requiring safe storage of weapons at home.
The advocacy group Buckeye Firearms Association challenged those laws in court, and the case has made its way up to the state supreme court.
The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case this March but has yet to issue a ruling.
“It is my hope that we impose potential financial repercussions for these cities who so frivolously trample on the rights of their residents,” Johnson said.
He added the prospect of monetary damages will give “vigilant defenders of freedom” the financial protection to challenge local laws.
Reactions
At its initial committee hearing, Johnson’s proposal got a warm welcome from his fellow Republicans.
State Sen. Kyle Koehler, R-Springfield, recalled worrying about bringing his gun on a cross-country road trip.
“My biggest fear was, what do I do when I go through Illinois? Because it’s like, do I have to disassemble this firearm?” Koehler said.
Koehler said he didn’t want to “suddenly be breaking a law that I didn’t know existed,” driving around Ohio, and asked if Johnson’s proposal is meant to avoid that problem.
In truth it doesn’t. Johnson’s legislation only allows aggrieved citizens to sue for greater damages. To the extent that Ohio’s gun laws aim at uniformity, those statutes are already on the books.
Across the aisle, state Sen. Kent Smith, D-Euclid, pressed Johnson on extent of the problem he’s trying to address. N
odding to the Columbus lawsuit, he asked if Johnson had any other examples of local gun laws.
“We’ll be happy to do a scour and take a look,” Johnson said, before acknowledging, “Since (passing the preemption statute), it’s been primarily Columbus.”
Moving on, Smith asked what has happened to the gun-related death rate in Ohio since the preemption statute was enacted 15 years ago.
“I believe in the depths of COVID (they) went up, overall gun deaths, including gun homicides and gun suicides, and since 2021 it has been falling,” Johnson said.
But Smith drew him back to the initial question.
“The numbers have gone up about 50% from 2006 to 2024,” he said. “So yeah, they may have come down since 2021, but that was why I asked over the last 15 years since this section was enacted.”
Meanwhile Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein, the official who’s spent the past few years defending the ordinances Johnson wants to undo, was far more direct about his opposition.
“S.B. 278 is bad for cities, bad for public safety, bad for the majority of Ohioans who want real action on gun safety, and it’s just plain bad policy,” he said.
“I oppose this effort to make it harder for cities to take meaningful steps to protect the safety and well-being of residents from senseless gun violence, and we will be ready to testify against this bill when it comes up in committee.”
Follow Ohio Capital Journal Reporter Nick Evans on X or on Bluesky.
Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.