COLUMBUS, OH — An Ohio appeals court upheld a preliminary injunction against Columbus gun ordinances on October 9, rejecting the city’s challenges to an order involving magazine restrictions and firearm-storage provisions.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals rejected all five assignments of error raised by Columbus in Doe v. Columbus. Its decision leaves the preliminary relief in place while the underlying dispute continues.
The city challenged the firearm owners’ use of pseudonyms, their standing to sue, the trial court’s authority to hear the case and the grounds for granting the injunction.
The appellate court accepted the trial court’s assessment that concerns about prosecution supported allowing the plaintiffs to proceed anonymously. It also found that other litigation did not prevent this case from going forward because the actions did not involve substantially the same parties.
On standing, the judges considered allegations that plaintiffs possessed covered magazines in Columbus or wanted to return them to a home there. The court also accepted their personal stake in the challenged storage provisions.
How the case reached this decision
Columbus adopted Ordinance 3176-2022 in December 2022, followed by an amendment in February 2023. Firearm owners sued in Delaware County, where the trial court granted preliminary relief on April 25, 2023.
The Fifth District initially dismissed the city’s appeal. On April 1, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed that procedural decision and directed the appellate court to consider the merits of the appeal.
The Fifth District reopened the case in May and heard arguments on August 4 before issuing its October 9 ruling.
The decision concerns a preliminary injunction, which provides relief during litigation. It does not resolve every issue in the underlying case or establish a nationwide rule on magazine restrictions.
Timeline
Legal and safety breakdown
The opinion addresses both Article I, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution and Ohio Revised Code 9.68, which promotes statewide uniformity in firearm regulation.
For the state constitutional claim, the court approved treating federal Second Amendment protections as a minimum for the corresponding Ohio right. It discussed the historical-tradition framework of Bruen and Rahimi while reviewing the preliminary injunction.
The judges also concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claims under R.C. 9.68. That statute authorizes challenges to conflicting actions by local governments while retaining references to state and federal law and specified zoning exceptions.
Those findings support the interim relief at issue in this appeal. Whether Columbus seeks further review or a stay, and how the trial-court proceedings develop, remain questions for follow-up reporting.
Safety Tip: Keep firearms secured against unauthorized access, especially by children, while court challenges proceed. Store keys and access codes where unauthorized users cannot reach them.
