Could the state enact a law that'd supersede town ordinances?

[Mr.Slant]

@lawbuff

Did you read Mendenhall?

Although it does not cite a previous case, State v. Parker (1995?) ruled that Municipalities derive thier traffic law power from the Ohio Constitution, NOT the legislative laws, and under the Home Rule provision, Mendenhall can not be stricken by the legislature.

Dang, got me.
I moved here in 2000.
Of course, per the OP, the state constitution is the will of the state, so that brings us back to the answer for all state law question here: it depends on which state.

[lawbuff]

@Mr.Slant

Dang, got me.
I moved here in 2000.
Of course, per the OP, the state constitution is the will of the state, so that brings us back to the answer for all state law question here: it depends on which state.

I have to correct myself on a point, although the final point of law is correct.

Parker did not rule such, it was the case I had in my mind though. It only cites Dunn, which ruled it.

In Munn, we also clarified dictum found in Columbus v. Webster (1960),170 Ohio St. 327, 10 O.0.2d 419, 164 N.E.2d 734, that seemed to indicate that a municipality’s authority to regulate traffic comes from R.C. 4511.07.** We restated that a municipality’s authority to regulate traffic comes from the
Ohio Constitution; it does not come from R.C. 4511.07**.

1994-ohio-93.pdf

So since Mendenhall was a Home Rule case, the provisions of Dunn apply, as the gravaman was, did the infraction classification violate Home Rule?

[pkbites]

@11811

State gun laws trump the more restrictive gun laws that Philadelphia city government has tried to pass.

This is the first thing I thought of when I was reading the OP. Preemption laws insure there isn’t a patchwork of laws all over the state, confusing citizens as to when something is legal or not.

Some years back Wisconsin did this with tavern closing times, making them standard across the state. I’m currently trying to get my reps in the senate and assembly to introduce a bill to do the same with when liquor can be sold at stores.
It’s completely ludicrous that one can’t walk to the store that’s at the end of their street and buy beer after 9pm, but they can drive a few miles in their car and buy it up until midnight. The ordinance that ends sales at 9 is done under the lie of fighting drunk driving. Ridiculous.

[Colibri]

@ducati

Hopefully, the state of New York will see fit to supersede Bloomberg’s idiotic Big Brother Rules of Dieting, and quell the nonsense in NYC, if it’s not all found unconstitutional first.

Moderator Note

ducati, political jabs are not permitted in General Questions. No warning issued, but don’t do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[ducati]

I didn’t mean it as such. I merely thought it germane to the OP as an example of state vs. city, but I can see your point.

Mea Culpa.

[Northern_Piper]

@bump

I think that may be a misleading example; I’m pretty sure that since the plaintiffs (the cities like NYC) and the defendants (let’s say Sturm, Ruger & Co) are in different states, the case is being heard in Federal court, which means that yes, the Feds explicitly have the ability to block that sort of thing, without stepping on any state toes.

If for example, NYC was somehow suing Ruger in NY state court for breaking NY laws, then that would be different, and the Feds would have no say.

No, that’s not the case. Congress didn’t pass the law as a regulation of federal court jurisdiction, but under the commerce power, so it applies to tort actions under state law in state courts, providing a defence to the gun-seller.

See this article: One Quick Answer to Sandy Hook? Repeal the 2005 Arms Act, which discusses an ongoing case in the Alaska state courts:

An individual was shot and killed by a loonie, and the family of the deceased tried to sue the gunshop which sold the gun to the loonie. The trial judge in the state court initially held that there was a cause of action under state law which warranted a trial, but in a later motion, held that the federal law precluded the state court from proceeding to hear the tort claim, brought under state law. That ruling is now on appeal to the Supreme Court of Alaska.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

ahem Post 15.

[Northern_Piper]

I don’t read footnotes.

[qualityleashdog]

In Indiana, towns, counties, other forms of local gov’t can and do ban fireworks, but state law says that they CANNOT forbid fireworks for a lengthy period in July, around Christmas, New Year’s, and other times. Last year was sort of interesting, since I suppose our locally enacted burn bans allowed fireworks to be banned, despite the state saying they couldn’t be, but I think Indiana Homeland Security had their back on that one.