Just in time, since the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Cincy's ban on "assault weapons" on December 8 on the basis that the existing law did not preempt local law. http://suealtmeyer.typepad.com/cleveland_law_library_web/2006/12/cincinnati_assa.html Of concern is the comment by the prosecutor that the Ohio Supreme Court ruling would help in challenges to the proposed Sub. H.B. 347, if it becomes law, as it has.
The prosecutor's argument doesn't seem very strong. The new law expressly overrides any local ordinances, so I think it will be quite an uphill climb for these cities to enforce any contrary rules.
I don't understand this prosecutor's reasoning at all. If the city's ban on so-called assault weapons is upheld due to there being no prohibition in state law, then this newly enacted prohibition seems to put a crimp in any future claims. Not to mention this:
B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.
The law itself requires that any city attempting to enforce or pass their own laws PAY FOR successful legal actions to prevent them. A page from the ACLU's own play book.