guns .JPG

A three-judge panel at the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals on Thursday struck down most of the gun regulations enacted in Cleveland in 2015, including a proposal to create a so-called "gun registry" for those convicted of crimes involving a firearm.

(Lisa DeJong, The Plain Dealer, File, 2015 )

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A Cleveland gun offender registry and several gun regulations passed by city council in 2015 are unconstitutional, a three-judge panel at the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals declared on Thursday.

Most of the laws contained in the package, proposed by Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson and passed by City Council in the wake of a flurry of gun violence in 2014 and 2015, conflict with state law, thus rendering them invalid, the judges found.

The panel sent the case back to Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold who left the gun registry intact in August, but ruled that three laws violated a state law that gives state legislators preemptive control over gun laws, including a provision that allowed police officers to confiscate guns.

The appeals court on Thursday found that all but two laws contained in the package are unconstitutional.

Ohioans for Concealed Carry had filed a constitutional challenge against the ordinance days after it was passed by City Council.

The new regulations included:

A requirement that people convicted of crimes involving a firearm self-register with the city, akin to a sex-offender registry.

A rule that prohibits leaving a firearm where it can be accessed by someone under the age of 18.

A provision that requires people who aren't gun dealers to report the sale of guns or weapons.

The law that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to the city.

A provision that requires police to be notified if a gun is found on school property.

A ban on the negligent transfer of firearms to someone who is intoxicated or is a convicted felon (state law already prohibits reckless transfer).

An increased penalty for failing to secure a dangerous ordnance, such as an explosive material or device.

A new, stricter definition of automatic weapons.

The prohibition of shooting a firearm within 500 feet of a park, playground, or recreation center.

A provision allowing police to seize a gun from someone drinking, disturbing the police, threatening bodily harm or causing a disturbance or violence.

A provision prohibiting the defacing of identification marks on firearms or the possession of defaced firearms a misdemeanor; it is already a felony under state law.

General Assembly took away power from cities and villages to enact gun laws that go further than state statutes, and as a result, Cleveland's laws could not stand, the judges found.

The appeals judges that found all but two of those laws were more restrictive than existing state gun laws. The restriction on selling to people who are intoxicated and the prohibition on giving guns to a minor are allowed to stand because they mirror existing laws established by the legislature, according to the decision.

Judge Sean Gallagher, who penned the panel's opinion, noted that the judges could only make their decision based on state law.

"The city may not enact ordinances that conflict with Ohio's firearm ownership and possession laws, which are intended to prove uniformity throughout the state," Gallagher wrote. "If individuals on either side of the divide are unhappy with the law as written, the remedy lies with the Ohio legislature."

Judges Tim McCormack and Eileen T. Gallagher concurred.

This is the second time in less than 10 years that courts have struck down a package of gun regulations enacted in Cleveland. The Ohio Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision handed down in 2010, overturned several laws passed by Cleveland's City Council.

The appeals panel on Thursday ordered Saffold to declare the laws unconstitutional and award attorney's fees to Ohioans for Concealed Carry.

Jeff Garvas, president of Ohioans for Concealed Carry, lauded the court's decision, but said it was "unsurprising."

Garvas' group warned the city and council members before they passed the legislation that the nonprofit would file a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the package.

"Cleveland's idea that they can legislate away the criminal use of firearms at the expense of law-abiding individuals is a flawed concept that has been proven wrong time and time again," Garvas said.

In a written statement Thursday evening, Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson said that the city believes that the some of the laws deemed unconstitutional can be changed by editing wording in the legislation pertaining to the definitions of "automatic weapons" and "dangerous ordinance." Corrective language has already been proposed to city council, the statement says.

The city disagrees with the panel's ruling on ordinances about regulating the discharge of firearms, as well as the creation of a registry, the statement says. An appeal is planned.

cleveland.com reporter Jane Morice contributed to this post. To comment on this story, please visit our crime and courts comments section.

cleveland.com is a partner of the Greater Cleveland Food Bank. Every dollar buys four meals for the hungry. Click here to donate.