The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled on July 8, 2026, in favor of Frank West, a gun rights advocate, in a case against the City of Cincinnati regarding the enforcement of a municipal ordinance. The court affirmed part of the lower court's decision that declared a section of the Cincinnati Municipal Code unconstitutional and awarded West nearly $300,000 in legal fees. This ruling is significant as it impacts the enforcement of local gun laws in Ohio and sets a precedent for similar cases.
The case, known as West v. Cincinnati, arose after West was charged with child endangering due to an incident involving an unsecured firearm in his home. West challenged the constitutionality of Cincinnati Municipal Code (CMC) 915-3(b), arguing it was preempted by Ohio's firearms-uniformity law, R.C. 9.68. The dispute escalated through various courts, leading to the appeal in the Ohio Court of Appeals.
West was initially charged in the Hamilton County Municipal Court with two counts of child endangering after a minor friend of his son picked up an unsecured firearm in his home. Following this, West filed a civil action against the City of Cincinnati in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a declaration that CMC 915-3(b) was unconstitutional. He also sought damages, costs, and attorney fees.
The City of Cincinnati, represented by Mayor Aftab Pureval, City Solicitor Emily Smart Woerner, and Interim Police Chief Adam Hennie, filed a motion to dismiss West's civil action, arguing he should have raised his challenge in the criminal case. However, the trial court denied this motion and ultimately ruled that CMC 915-3(b) was void and granted West a permanent injunction against its enforcement. The City then appealed the ruling.
In the latest ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that CMC 915-3(b) was unconstitutional due to its conflict with R.C. 9.68. The court stated, "West was the prevailing party in the action because he had successfully proven that R.C. 915-3(b) was in conflict with R.C. 9.68(A)." However, the court also found that the trial court had abused its discretion in awarding West the full amount of attorney fees without adequately reviewing the invoices for block billing.
The court ordered that the case be remanded to the trial court to review the invoices submitted by West's legal team for block billing and to exclude any block-billed entries from the fee award. The total amount awarded to West was $296,179.75, which included attorney fees and expert witness costs.
This ruling has significant implications for gun rights advocates and local governments in Ohio. It reinforces the principle that local ordinances cannot conflict with state law regarding firearms. Moreover, it sets a precedent for how attorney fees are awarded in cases involving challenges to municipal ordinances.
Going forward, the City of Cincinnati may consider appealing this decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, although details on potential next steps were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may influence future legal battles over local gun regulations in Ohio.