[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Columbus, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6724.] 

NOTICE 

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to 

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 

the opinion is published. 

SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-6724

OHIOANS FOR CONCEALED CARRY, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. THE CITY OF 

COLUMBUS ET AL., APPELLEES.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Columbus, Slip Opinion 

No. 2020-Ohio-6724.] 

Civil law—Before an Ohio court may consider the merits of a legal claim, the 

person seeking relief must establish standing—Court of appeals’ judgment 

affirmed. 

(No. 2019-1274—Submitted July 8, 2020—Decided December 18, 2020.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 

No. 18AP-605, 2019-Ohio-3105. 

________________ 

 O’CONNOR, C.J. 

{¶ 1} In this appeal, we determine whether appellants, Ohioans for 

Concealed Carry, Inc. (“OCC”) and Buckeye Firearms Foundation, Inc. (“BFF”) 

(collectively, “appellants”), have standing to bring an action seeking declaratory 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

and injunctive relief against appellees, the city of Columbus and Columbus City 

Attorney Zach M. Klein (collectively, “the city”) regarding two firearm-related 

ordinances that appellants allege are unlawful under R.C. 9.68. Because we 

conclude that appellants have not established standing in this case, we affirm the 

judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. 

I. Relevant Background

{¶ 2} In May 2018, the Columbus City Council passed Columbus 

Ordinance 1116-2018. This ordinance, among other things, enacted two provisions 

of the Columbus City Code (“C.C.C.”) relevant to this case, C.C.C. 2323.13 and 

2323.171. C.C.C. 2323.13 is the city’s weapons-under-disability ordinance and 

prohibits individuals who have been previously convicted of a misdemeanor 

domestic-violence offense from possessing a firearm, C.C.C. 2323.13(A)(3). 

C.C.C. 2323.171 makes it a misdemeanor, C.C.C. 2323.171(B), for a person to 

“knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use an illegal rate-of-fire-acceleration firearm 

accessory,” C.C.C. 2323.171(A). According to the city, this ordinance is directed 

at firearm accessories known as “bump stocks.” See C.C.C. 2323.171(C)(1). 

{¶ 3} A little over a month after the city enacted these ordinances, 

appellants and Gary Witt, a member of OCC and a resident of Columbus, filed a 

complaint against the city seeking an injunction against enforcement of the 

ordinances as unconstitutional, based on the argument that they are preempted by 

R.C. 9.68—a statute pertaining to ensuring that the laws throughout Ohio regarding 

the right to bear arms are uniform—and seeking a declaratory judgment that C.C.C. 

2323.13 and 2323.171 violate R.C. 9.68. The complaint asserted that appellants 

were not-for-profit Ohio corporations and were composed of firearm owners across 

Ohio, “including members who [were] taxpayers of the [c]ity of Columbus.” 

{¶ 4} The complaint asserted two causes of action. In the first, appellants 

and Witt sought injunctive relief against enforcement of the ordinances through a 

statutory-taxpayer action, as permitted by R.C. 733.59. In support, appellants and 
January Term, 2020 

3

Witt alleged that the implementation of the ordinances “resulted in, or is 

imminently likely to result in, the misapplication (and an inappropriate and 

unlawful expenditure) of funds of the City, by virtue of efforts by the City to 

advertise and promote the Ordinances, enforce the Ordinances, implement the 

Ordinances and defend the Ordinances.” They also asserted that the ordinances 

were “an abuse of the City’s home rule power” and “involved, or [were] reasonably 

likely to involve, execution of contracts with third parties concerning the 

advertisement, enforcement, and implementation of the unlawful provisions 

therein, including but not limited to contracts for public defenders for indigent 

defendants charged with violating the Ordinances.” Appellants and Witt alleged 

that they were seeking “to enforce the public right of the people to keep and bear 

arms and all peripheral rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution of Ohio, the 

Constitution of the United States of America and R.C. 9.68.” 

{¶ 5} In the second cause of action, appellants and Witt asserted they were 

entitled, pursuant to R.C. 9.68, to a declaration that the ordinances are unlawful, 

“as well as every other ordinance enacted, promulgated and/or maintained by 

Defendant City that purports to regulate the right of a person to possess, purchase, 

sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components 

and ammunition.” Appellants and Witt also requested an award of attorney fees 

under R.C. 9.68. 

{¶ 6} In tandem with filing the complaint, appellants and Witt also moved 

for a temporary restraining order against the city and a preliminary injunction, both 

of which sought to preclude the city from enforcing C.C.C. 2323.13 and 2323.171. 

The trial court granted the temporary restraining order, enjoining the city from all 

enforcement activity associated with C.C.C. 2323.13 and 2323.171. In opposition 

to the preliminary-injunction motion, the city argued, in part, that appellants and 

Witt had little chance of success on the merits because they lacked standing to bring 

their claims. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

{¶ 7} After a hearing on the preliminary injunction, the trial court held that 

Witt had taxpayer standing under R.C. 733.59. Because the city’s ordinances 

“directly impact the rights” of appellants’ members, the trial court also found that 

appellants had organizational standing. The trial court ultimately found C.C.C. 

2323.171 to be unconstitutional and granted a permanent injunction enjoining its 

enforcement. However, the trial court denied injunctive relief regarding C.C.C. 

2323.13. 

{¶ 8} On appeal, the city challenged the trial court’s finding that appellants 

and Witt had standing. The Tenth District Court of Appeals agreed with the trial 

court that Witt had taxpayer standing for injunctive relief under R.C. 733.59, but 

concluded that appellants had failed to establish that they had standing under R.C. 

733.59, R.C. 9.68, or R.C. Chapter 2721, Ohio’s Declaratory Judgment Act.1

 

2019-Ohio-3105, 140 N.E.3d 1215, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.). 

{¶ 9} Appellants sought discretionary review, and we accepted the 

following proposition of law: “A nonprofit firearms-rights association has standing 

to challenge as unconstitutional municipal ordinances that violate R.C. 9.68 by 

maintaining an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under R.C. 9.68, R.C. 

733.59, and/or Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2721.” See 157 Ohio St.3d 1495, 2019-

Ohio-4840, 134 N.E.3d 1210. 

{¶ 10} On December 18, 2019, while this appeal was pending, the city 

repealed C.C.C. 2323.171. See Columbus Ordinance 3189-2019. The city 

explained in its merit brief that it repealed the ordinance because the United States 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives had issued a rule stating 

 

1. The court of appeals also found that OCC and BFF failed to establish standing under the publicright doctrine. However, we declined review of appellants’ proposition of law challenging this 

holding. In addition, appellants concede in their reply brief that “no ‘public rights’ standing 

argument is present in this appeal.” Thus, we do not address the public-right-standing doctrine in 

this decision. 
January Term, 2020 

5

that a firearm with a bump-stock accessory was a “machinegun,” the possession of 

which is already a felony under federal and state law. 

II. Analysis 

{¶ 11} As a threshold matter, we address the city’s assertion that appellants’ 

claims regarding C.C.C. 2323.171, the bump-stock ordinance, are moot because 

that ordinance was repealed while this appeal was pending. Appellants argue that 

because the city has not repealed the weapons-under-disability ordinance, C.C.C. 

2323.13, and there is also a reasonable probability that the city will attempt to enact 

a similar ordinance to the bump-stock ordinance in the future, this appeal is not 

moot. Moreover, appellants argue that they may still be entitled to an award of 

attorney fees under R.C. 9.68(B). We find that the issue whether appellants have 

standing remains relevant to the resolution of attorney fees related to appellants’ 

challenge to C.C.C. 2323.171. Thus, we proceed to determine the question of 

standing. 

A. Standing 

{¶ 12} It is well established that prior to an Ohio court’s considering the 

merits of a legal claim, “the person or entity seeking relief must establish standing 

to sue.” Ohio Pyro, Inc v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, Div. of State Fire Marshal, 

115 Ohio St.3d 375, 2007-Ohio-5024, 875 N.E.2d 550, ¶ 27. At a minimum, 

common-law standing requires the litigant to demonstrate that he or she has 

suffered (1) an injury (2) that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly 

unlawful conduct and (3) is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Moore v. 

Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, 975 N.E.2d 977, ¶ 22. Standing 

does not turn on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims but rather on “whether the 

plaintiffs have alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy that 

they are entitled to have a court hear their case.” ProgressOhio.org, Inc. v. 

JobsOhio, 139 Ohio St.3d 520, 2014-Ohio-2382, 13 N.E.3d 1101, ¶ 7. Standing 

may also be conferred by statute. Middletown v. Ferguson, 25 Ohio St.3d 71, 75, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

495 N.E.2d 380 (1986). Whether appellants have established standing is a question 

of law, which we review de novo. See Moore at ¶ 20, citing Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of 

Commrs. v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 59, 2006-Ohio-6499, 858 N.E.2d 330, ¶ 23. 

{¶ 13} Standing “ ‘ “is not dispensed in gross,” ’ ” it must be demonstrated 

for each claim and each form of relief. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc. v. Kasich, 153 

Ohio St.3d 157, 2018-Ohio-441,102 N.E.3d 461, ¶ 30, quoting Davis v. Fed. 

Election Comm., 554 U.S. 724, 734, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 171 L.E.2d 737 (2008), 

quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 358, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 

(1996), fn. 6. Here, appellants asserted two claims for relief in their complaint: 

(1) a statutory-taxpayer action for injunctive relief under R.C. 733.59 and (2) a 

declaratory-judgment action based on the argument that R.C. 9.68 provides them 

the right to challenge the ordinances. Appellants assert that as nonprofit firearmsrights associations, they have standing to challenge municipal ordinances that 

violate R.C. 9.68. They do not, however, seek to establish standing through 

traditional common-law principles. Instead, appellants claim that they have 

standing through three alternative, statutory means: (1) statutory standing under 

R.C. 9.68, (2) taxpayer standing under R.C. 733.59, and (3) statutory standing 

under the Declaratory Judgment Act. 

B. Standing Under R.C. 9.68 

{¶ 14} Appellants assert several theories of standing under R.C. 9.68. We 

first address appellants’ argument in their complaint that R.C. 9.68 provides them 

with standing because it “provides Plaintiffs a private right of action to challenge 

any ordinance, rule or regulation in conflict with it.” 

{¶ 15} R.C. 9.68(A) states that the right to keep and bear arms is a 

“fundamental individual right” that is a “constitutionally protected right in every 

part of Ohio.” R.C. 9.68(A) also identifies the “need to provide uniform laws 

throughout the state” regulating the ownership and possession of firearms. The 

former version of R.C. 9.68(B), which was in effect at the time this case was filed, 
January Term, 2020 

7

also stated: “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.”2

 Sub.H.B. 

No. 347, 151 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 8138, 8140. 

{¶ 16} Appellants assert that R.C. 9.68(B)’s reference to “any person,

group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance,” means that anyone 

may challenge an ordinance as being in conflict R.C. 9.68, and that the statute 

thereby confers standing. The Tenth District rejected this argument, however, 

noting that R.C. 9.68 is silent regarding standing or creating a cause of action. We 

agree with the court of appeals. 

{¶ 17} As this court noted in ProgressOhio.org, Inc., a statute’s silence “as 

to who has standing to maintain a constitutional challenge to the legislation does 

not render the statute ambiguous,” nor “will we read the statutory silence as clearly 

expressing an intention to abrogate the common-law requirements for standing.” 

139 Ohio St.3d 520, 2014-Ohio-2382, 13 N.E.3d 1101, at ¶ 22. Thus, even if we 

read the language in former R.C. 9.68(B) to imply the availability of a cause of 

action to challenge an ordinance, that would not abrogate the need for a “person, 

group, or entity” to establish standing for purposes of pursuing a civil action under 

that statute. 

{¶ 18} Appellants also argue that they have standing under R.C. 9.68 to 

challenge the ordinances in this case because they have established standing in 

 

2. The General Assembly amended R.C. 9.68 in 2019, and the amendment became effective while 

this appeal was pending. 2018 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 228. As amended, R.C. 9.68(B) expressly states 

that “[a] person, group, or entity adversely affected by any manner of ordinance, rule, regulation, 

resolution, practice, or other action enacted or enforced by a political subdivision in conflict with 

division (A) of this section may bring a civil action against the political subdivision seeking damages 

from the political subdivision, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or a combination of those 

remedies.” However, we limit our analysis to former R.C. 9.68(B) because that was the version in 

effect when appellants filed their complaint. See R.C. 1.58(A)(1) (“The reenactment, amendment, 

or repeal of a statute does not * * * [a]ffect the prior operation of the statute or any prior action taken 

thereunder”). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8

other cases challenging different ordinances. Indeed, appellants assert that this 

court’s review of the merits in cases like Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. 

Clyde, 120 Ohio St.3d 96, 2008-Ohio-4605, 896 N.E.2d 967, in which OCC was a 

party, have already implicitly recognized OCC’s standing under R.C. 9.68. We 

reject this argument. 

{¶ 19} This court’s decision in Clyde has no bearing on the standing 

analysis in this case. In Clyde, OCC filed an action seeking an injunction and an 

order striking down a municipal ordinance that prohibited the carrying of concealed 

handguns in Clyde city parks. Id. at ¶ 1, 19. This court ultimately concluded that 

the ordinance was unconstitutional under the Home Rule Amendment, Article 

XVIII, Section 3, of the Ohio Constitution, because the ordinance was an exercise 

of the municipality’s police power that conflicted with a general law. Id. at ¶ 1. 

{¶ 20} The fact that a party has established standing in a prior case does not 

establish the party’s standing in every case filed thereafter. The question of 

standing depends on whether the plaintiffs have alleged some basis—grounded in 

common or statutory law—that entitles them to have a court hear their case. See 

State ex rel. Dallman v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 35 Ohio St.2d 176, 

178-179, 298 N.E.2d 515 (1973), quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 

S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636, 641 (1972) (“ ‘Where the party does not rely on any 

specific statute authorizing invocation of the judicial process, the question of 

standing depends upon whether the party has alleged such a “personal stake in the 

outcome of the controversy,” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 

L.Ed.2d 663 [1962], * * * as to ensure that “the dispute sought to be adjudicated 

will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as a 

capable of judicial resolution,” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 101, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 

L.Ed.2d 947 [1968] * * *’ ” [ellipses added in Dallman]). Thus, standing must be 

determined on the allegations presented in each case. 
January Term, 2020 

9

{¶ 21} Finally, appellants also seem to contend that they have standing 

simply because they are entitled to relief under R.C. 9.68 on the merits of their 

challenge. Specifically, appellants argue in their merit brief that “[w]hether any 

Plaintiff owned or planned to own any of the several firearm components banned 

by the City * * * is entirely beside the point. Columbus undid what the General 

Assembly did in enacting statewide preemption.” As we stated above, however, 

standing does not turn on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims but rather on “whether 

the plaintiffs have alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy 

that they are entitled to have a court hear their case.” ProgressOhio.org, Inc., 139 

Ohio St.3d 520, 2014-Ohio-2382, 13 N.E.3d 1101, at ¶ 7. 

{¶ 22} In sum, we find no basis under former R.C. 9.68, which was in effect 

at the time this case was filed, to conclude that appellants have established standing 

in this case. 

C. Taxpayer Standing Under R.C. 733.59 

{¶ 23} Appellants next argue that they have standing under R.C. 733.59 to 

bring a taxpayer action for injunctive relief. When a statute provides for judicial 

review, “ ‘the inquiry as to standing must begin with a determination of whether 

the statute in question authorizes review at the behest of the plaintiff.’ ” 

Middletown, 25 Ohio St.3d at 75-76, 495 N.E.2d 380, quoting Sierra Club, 405 

U.S. at 732, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 31 L.Ed.2d 636. Accordingly, we begin with R.C. 

733.59, which sets forth the prerequisites for a taxpayer’s action: 

If the village solicitor or city director of law fails, upon the 

written request of any taxpayer of the municipal corporation, to 

make any application provided for in sections 733.56 to 733.58 of 

the Revised Code, the taxpayer may institute suit in his own name, 

on behalf of the municipal corporation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

“Taxpayer,” as used in R.C. 733.59, contemplates and includes “ ‘any person who, 

in a private capacity as a citizen, elector, freeholder or taxpayer, volunteers to 

enforce a right of action on behalf of and for the benefit of the public.’ ” State ex 

rel. White v. Cleveland, 34 Ohio St.2d 37, 40, 295 N.E.2d 665 (1973), quoting State 

ex rel. Nimon v. Springdale, 6 Ohio St.2d 1, 215 N.E.2d 592 (1966), paragraph two 

of the syllabus. 

{¶ 24} Nowhere within the complaint do appellants allege that they are

citizens, electors, freeholders, or taxpayers themselves. Instead, they allege that 

they are “not-for-profit Ohio corporation[s]” composed of “firearm owners across 

the state of Ohio, including members who are taxpayers of the City of Columbus.” 

Nevertheless, appellants argue that they have associational standing under R.C. 

733.59 by virtue of Witt’s individual-taxpayer standing. Associational standing is 

for organizations who sue on behalf of their members. See Peoples Rights Org., 

Inc. v. Columbus, 152 F.3d 522, 527 (6th Cir.1998) (“An association * * * can have 

standing as a representative of its members”). Notably, however, appellants’ 

complaint does not allege that they are bringing a taxpayer action on behalf of Witt. 

The complaint alleges that the letter sent to initiate the taxpayer action, as required 

under the statute, was sent by “Plaintiff OCC and Plaintiff BFF, on behalf of 

themselves, and Plaintiff Witt on behalf of himself.” (Emphasis added.) Here, it is 

clear that appellants are suing on behalf of themselves. As a result, Witt’s 

individual-taxpayer standing does not confer standing upon appellants.

{¶ 25} Appellants also argue that the Tenth District’s judgment must be 

reversed because although the court stated that “Ohio courts have implicitly 

recognized the standing of associations in statutory taxpayer actions,” 2019-Ohio3105, 140 N.E.3d 1215, at ¶ 37, it ignored appellants’ associational standing. And 

allowing this judgment to stand would “undo legions of cases,” including State ex 

rel. Fisher v. Cleveland, 109 Ohio St.3d 33, 2006-Ohio-1827, 845 N.E.2d 500. We 

disagree. 
January Term, 2020 

11 

{¶ 26} Our decision in Fisher addressed only the specific standing 

argument that had been presented in that case; namely, whether relators had 

asserted a matter that concerned a public right or benefit. “A taxpayer action is 

properly brought only when the right under review in the action is one benefitting 

the public.” Id. at ¶ 10. In Fisher, the civil suit had been initiated by an individual, 

Robert Fisher, and the Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the 

International Association of Fire Fighters. Our analysis did not reach the issue 

whether the Association of Cleveland Fire Fighters had properly asserted standing 

as a taxpayer, either alone or on behalf of its individual member, because we 

concluded that the action did not affect a public right. Id. ¶ 14. 

{¶ 27} Here, appellants fail to identify the other cases that are purportedly 

among the “legions” we would have to undo if we affirmed the court of appeals’ 

judgment. Nonetheless, we note that the court of appeals recognized that the cases 

it cited in support of its statement that Ohio courts have implicitly recognized the 

standing of organizations in taxpayer actions did not “directly address standing nor 

inform what the associations alleged in their complaints, i.e., did they allege they 

met the definition of taxpayer,” 2019-Ohio-3105, 140 N.E.3d 1215, at ¶ 37. Nor 

did the cases address associational standing. See id., citing State ex rel. Jones v. 

Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 124 Ohio App.3d 184, 187, 705 N.E.2d 1247 (1st 

Dist.1997); Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn. v. Mentor, 108 Ohio App.3d 373, 380, 670 

N.E.2d 1042 (11th Dist.1995). 

{¶ 28} The court of appeals also cited Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. 

Cleveland, 2017-Ohio-1560, 90 N.E.3d 80 (8th Dist.). We find this case 

instructive. In Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc., the Eighth District noted that 

the requirement in R.C. 733.59 that a written request be served on the city law 

director asking that he or she initiate suit on behalf of the city is a mandatory 

prerequisite to a taxpayer action. Id. at ¶ 42. But OCC had sent the letter on the 

individual plaintiff’s behalf, and R.C. 733.59 “does not authorize taxpayer actions 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

12 

by proxy,” id. at ¶ 43, and OCC “is not an individual taxpayer or citizen,” id. at 

¶ 44. For these reasons, the court of appeals upheld the trial court’s determination 

that the individual plaintiff lacked standing to pursue a taxpayer action because he 

did not properly initiate the taxpayer action. Id. 

{¶ 29} Here, the complaint alleged that Witt sent the letter to initiate the 

taxpayer action on behalf of himself, and Witt’s taxpayer action in this case is 

proceeding. And the complaint alleged that appellants sent the letter to initiate the 

taxpayer action “on behalf of themselves.” Thus, appellants have not alleged a 

taxpayer action on Witt’s behalf. Because they are not taxpayers in their own right, 

they have not established standing to bring a taxpayer action for injunctive relief 

under R.C. 733.59 to challenge the ordinances. 

D. Standing Under the Declaratory Judgment Act 

{¶ 30} Appellants also assert that they have standing under R.C. 2721.03 to 

seek a declaration that the ordinances are unlawful. R.C. 2721.03 pertains only to 

“person[s] whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a 

constitutional provision, statute, * * * [or] municipal ordinance.” The three 

prerequisites to declaratory relief include “(1) a real controversy between the 

parties, (2) justiciability, and (3) the necessity of speedy relief to preserve the 

parties’ rights.” ProgressOhio.org, Inc., 139 Ohio St.3d 520, 2014-Ohio-2382, 13 

N.E.3d 1101, at ¶ 19; see also Moore, 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, 975 

N.E.2d 977, at ¶ 49. 

{¶ 31} Appellants argue that these requirements apply to them and that the 

traditional standing requirements must “yield” here because they are seeking a 

declaration that the city’s ordinances are unconstitutional. Consequently, 

appellants argue that they do not need to show that they have actually been injured 

or that they have suffered any particularized harm. Additionally, appellants assert 

that they do not need to wait for the ordinances to be enforced before challenging 

the constitutionality of the ordinances. 
January Term, 2020 

13 

{¶ 32} Although a declaratory-judgment action generally contemplates that 

the action is brought before an injury-in-fact has occurred, a plaintiff must 

nonetheless demonstrate “actual present harm or a significant possibility of future 

harm to justify pre-enforcement relief.” Peoples Rights Org., Inc. v. Columbus, 

152 F.3d 522, 527 (6th Cir.1998). Certain impending injury is sufficient to obtain 

preventative relief; a plaintiff need not wait for an injury to actually occur. Id. 

{¶ 33} In Peoples Rights Org., Inc., the plaintiffs challenged in federal court 

a Columbus City Code provision that prohibited the sale, transfer, acquisition, or 

possession of any assault weapon. Id. at 527-528. The Sixth Circuit Court of 

Appeals concluded that the individual plaintiffs established standing to pursue their 

declaratory-judgment action based on a significant possibility of future harm. Id. 

at 530-531. The court also determined that the organization plaintiff established 

associational standing. Id. at 531. A review of the allegations in the complaint is 

instructive. 

{¶ 34} In that case, the organization plaintiff, Peoples Rights Organization, 

Inc. (“PRO”), and two of its members brought a pre-enforcement action seeking a 

declaration that a Columbus City Code provision prohibiting assault weapons was 

unconstitutional. Id. at 526. PRO alleged that its members owned firearms that 

may have been defined as “assault weapons” under the ordinance. Id. at 528-529. 

They also alleged that members had not registered their firearms, because they were 

unsure whether they qualified as “assault weapons” under the ordinance. Id. at 528. 

The complaint alleged that the individual plaintiffs and members of PRO owned 

semiautomatic handguns and that they could not determine whether those weapons 

constituted “assault weapons” under the ordinance. Id. One of the individual 

plaintiffs alleged that he owned a rifle with a detachable magazine, which he 

believed was the only magazine that would fit the rifle, but that he could not 

determine whether that weapon constituted an “assault weapon” under the 

ordinance. Id. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

14 

{¶ 35} Here, in stark contrast, the only allegation in appellants’ complaint 

relating to firearms is that appellants’ members own firearms. The complaint 

contains no allegation that the members own firearms with bump stocks or some 

other accessory that could be considered within the purview of the ordinance. It 

also lacks any allegation that the members wish to own bump stocks. And there is 

no allegation that members offer bump stocks for sale. The complaint similarly 

contains no allegations specific to the weapons-under-disability ordinance. For 

example, there is no allegation that any of appellants’ members have been charged 

with or convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence. The complaint 

is simply devoid of any allegation on which we could conclude the significant 

possibility of future injury.3

 

{¶ 36} In Peoples Rights Org., Inc., the Sixth Circuit noted, “It is clear from 

the complaint the predicament that [the plaintiffs] face.” Id., 152 F.3d at 528. Here, 

however, appellants have alleged no predicament. Nonetheless, in support of their 

cause of action for declaratory relief, they allege that they are entitled to a 

 

3. The first dissenting opinion suggests that because this case has proceeded past the close of the 

pleadings, the standing inquiry resembles the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings 

pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C). Applying that standard, that dissent concludes that the city has failed to 

demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants cannot prove that any of their members have 

been injured by the ordinance because “it is possible” appellants could prove that a member has 

been harmed by the ordinances. Dissenting opinion of Kennedy, J., at ¶ 54. But the standard for 

motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C) is still grounded in the pleadings. 

Indeed, “[t]he trial court must limit its inquiry to the material allegations in the pleadings—accepting 

those allegations and all reasonable inferences as true—and, if it is clear from the pleadings that 

plaintiff could prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief, judgment on the pleadings is 

appropriate as a matter of law.” Fisher v. Ahmed, 2020-Ohio-1196, 153 N.E.3d 612, ¶ 11 (9th Dist.). 

Here, there are no allegations in the complaint on which to base the first dissenting opinion’s 

assumptions about appellants’ potential proof of harm. Moreover, “[w]hile the proof required to 

establish standing increases as the suit proceeds, * * *, the standing inquiry remains focused on 

whether the party invoking jurisdiction had the requisite stake in the outcome when the suit was 

filed.” Davis v. Fed. Election Comm., 554 U.S. 724, 734, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 171 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). 

We also note, as does the first dissenting opinion, that appellants presented no evidence of standing 

at the trial court’s hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. In fact, appellants asserted 

that no evidence was required to rebut the city’s standing challenge and that the issues to be argued 

at the hearing were appellants’ and Witt’s “legal standing and the efficacy of the claims raised in 

the [c]omplaint.” 
January Term, 2020 

15 

declaration that the ordinances, “as well as every other ordinance enacted, 

promulgated and/or maintained by Defendant City that purports to regulate the right 

of a person to possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, 

part of a firearm, its components and ammunition” are unlawful. As we stated in 

ProgressOhio.org, Inc., an “idealistic opposition” to a challenged law is 

insufficient to establish standing under the Declaratory Judgment Act. 139 Ohio 

St.3d 520, 2014-Ohio-2382, 13 N.E.3d 1101, at ¶ 19. 

{¶ 37} Appellants also argue in their merit brief that Ohio’s Declaratory 

Judgment Act broadly authorizes actions for declaratory relief predicated on 

constitutional or nonconstitutional grounds, and that such relief “should be 

employed to ensure the City’s unconstitutional Ordinances will not subject firearms 

owners to new municipal criminal penalties.” The general availability of an action 

for declaratory relief to challenge an ordinance is not the subject of this appeal. 

This appeal relates to appellants’ standing to pursue such relief. The strength of 

the merits of a claim for declaratory relief is not relevant to a plaintiff’s burden to 

establish standing. Standing depends on “whether the plaintiffs have alleged such 

a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy that they are entitled to have a 

court hear their case.” ProgressOhio.org, Inc. at ¶ 7. Thus, we decline the 

invitation to establish a blanket rule that a certain plaintiff will always have standing 

under the Declaratory Judgment Act to challenge municipal ordinances under R.C. 

9.68. We conclude that in this case, on the allegations in the complaint and on the 

arguments presented, appellants have not established standing. 

E. Appellants’ Future Ability to Establish Standing Is Not Before this Court 

{¶ 38} Both dissenting opinions suggest that appellants could demonstrate 

standing based on harm to one of their members by the city ordinances. Dissenting 

opinion of Kennedy, J., at ¶ 54; dissenting opinion of DeWine, J., at ¶ 64. In doing 

so though, each dissenting opinion implicitly acknowledges that appellants have 

not alleged or proved a basis for standing in this case at this time. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

16 

{¶ 39} In an attempt to circumvent this fact, the second dissenting opinion 

fashions a newly minted argument that offers appellants an opportunity to reargue 

their standing case with the benefit of the court’s collective agreement that they 

have not alleged a proper basis for standing. This approach not only would relieve 

appellants of their well-established burden to establish standing and present the 

court with a justiciable claim, but also would provide appellants with an 

unprecedented belief that even if they cannot establish standing on their asserted 

theory, they can try again on remand. 

{¶ 40} At every level, appellants have argued that they have standing under 

R.C. 9.68 to pursue injunctive and declaratory relief without having to demonstrate 

harm. Indeed, in appellants’ reply brief to this court, they made the following 

statements: (1) “The City’s arguments about the standing of [appellants] under R.C. 

9.68 fail because the requirements for standing do not require actual injury or 

particularized harm for relief from the City’s firearm Ordinances” and (2) “Neither 

[appellant] need demonstrate that its members own guns. * * * The interest in 

uniformity is, in and of itself, sufficient to create standing * * *.” And even though 

the claim for injunctive relief may proceed on Witt’s taxpayer standing under R.C. 

733.59, appellants’ proposition of law is seeking a broad, bright-line rule that “[a] 

non-profit firearms-rights association has standing to challenge as unconstitutional 

municipal ordinances that violate R.C. 9.68 by maintaining an action for 

declaratory and injunctive relief under R.C. 9.68, R.C. 733.59, and/or Ohio Revised 

Code Chapter 2721.” (Emphasis added.) Appellants have requested that this court 

reverse the Tenth District’s standing decision on its merits, not because it was 

“premature,” dissenting opinion of DeWine, J., at ¶ 58. We should not allow a 

party another opportunity to establish standing on remand after the issue was

argued by the parties and determined by the court. 

{¶ 41} Moreover, the second dissenting opinion states that appellants “were 

never individually put to the burden of proving standing in the proceeding below.” 
January Term, 2020 

17 

Dissenting opinion of DeWine, J., at ¶ 63. Yet appellants had ample opportunity 

to prove standing below; first in their complaint and again when the city challenged 

their standing in its memorandum in opposition to a preliminary injunction. 

Nevertheless, the dissenting opinions assert that the city missed the boat for not 

challenging standing via the proper procedural vehicle or failing to “show beyond 

doubt,” dissenting opinion of Kennedy, J., at ¶ 54, appellants lacked standing when 

it is the plaintiff’s burden to allege a basis for standing. See also dissenting opinion 

of DeWine, J., at ¶ 63; Albanese v. Batman, 148 Ohio St.3d 85, 2016-Ohio-5814, 

68 N.E.3d 800, ¶ 24 (“To have standing, the party bringing the action must assert 

a personal stake in the outcome of the action” [emphasis sic]); Lujan v. Defenders 

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) 

(emphasizing that a plaintiff’s burden to establish standing is “an indispensable part 

of the plaintiff’s case”). 

{¶ 42} But contrary to the second dissenting opinion’s suggestion, there is 

no magical moment during litigation that a plaintiff is relieved of its burden to 

establish standing. It is a “jurisdictional requirement” that must be met for a party 

to maintain a lawsuit. Dallman, 35 Ohio St.2d at 179, 298 N.E.2d 515. Thus, 

standing “may be raised at any time during the pendency of the proceedings,” New 

Boston Coke Corp. v. Tyler, 32 Ohio St.3d 216, 513 N.E.2d 302 (1987), paragraph 

two of the syllabus, including by a reviewing court sua sponte, Dallman at 178 (this 

court sua sponte raising the issue of standing and dismissing the appeal based on a 

party’s failure to allege a personal stake in the outcome of the proceedings). 

{¶ 43} Further, the case at hand is different than Planned Parenthood of 

Idaho, Inc. v. Wasden, 376 F.3d 908 (9th Cir.2004), on which the second dissenting 

opinion relies to promote such a view. In that case, the district court explicitly 

declined to decide whether Planned Parenthood had standing, because another 

plaintiff had standing to sue, and Planned Parenthood requested that the Ninth 

Circuit do the same, decline review of its standing, in an attempt to have the merits 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

18 

of the appeal decided. Id. at 917-918. The trial court here made no such caveat as 

to appellants’ standing, and appellants have argued the exact opposite on appeal, 

asserting that they have standing under the theories asserted and that the Tenth 

District should affirm their own standing to bring their claims for declaratory and 

injunctive relief. 

{¶ 44} In sum, there is no basis for a remand on standing here. We have 

not identified an error in the Tenth District’s decision nor have we announced a 

new test or standard for the lower courts to apply. The threshold requirement that 

a plaintiff must establish standing is far from a new concept in the law. See 

Dallman at 179 (“It is an elementary concept of law that a party lacks standing to 

invoke the jurisdiction of the court unless he has * * * some real interest in the 

subject matter of the action”). To hold as we do today, that appellants have not met 

that threshold requirement does not deprive them of another opportunity to seek 

relief from the city ordinances under R.C. 9.68. Our holding simply means that 

they, like every plaintiff who files a lawsuit, must establish standing to maintain 

their suit. See Clifton v. Blanchester, 131 Ohio St.3d 287, 2012-Ohio-780, 964 

N.E.2d 414, ¶ 15, quoting State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 

86 Ohio St.3d 451, 469, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (1999) (“ ‘It is well established that 

before an Ohio court can consider the merits of a legal claim, the person seeking 

relief must establish standing to sue’ ”). Here, appellants adopted a flawed theory 

of standing and continued to rely on it throughout the adversarial process. Because 

their theory is incorrect in this case, we cannot remedy it here. For whatever case 

appellants may file in the future, they will have the benefit of this court’s decision 

today as well as the dissenting opinions’ observations on how to properly establish 

standing. 

 
January Term, 2020 

19 

III. Conclusion 

{¶ 45} For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that appellants have not

established standing under R.C. 9.68, R.C. 733.58, or R.C. Chapter 2721 to 

challenge the ordinances. Therefore, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment. 

Judgment affirmed. 

FRENCH, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., concur. 

KENNEDY, J., dissents, with an opinion. 

DEWINE, J., dissents, with an opinion joined by FISCHER, J. 

_________________ 

KENNEDY, J., dissenting. 

{¶ 46} Because appellees, the city of Columbus and Columbus City 

Attorney Zach M. Klein (collectively, “the city”), cannot demonstrate beyond 

doubt that appellants, Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc., and Buckeye Firearms 

Foundation, Inc., can prove no set of facts establishing that they have standing to 

sue on behalf of their members, I dissent and would reverse the judgment of the 

Tenth District Court of Appeals dismissing the associations from this litigation and 

would remand this matter for a trial on the merits of the request for a permanent 

injunction. 

{¶ 47} In May 2018, Columbus City Council passed Ordinance 1116-2018, 

which enacted Columbus City Code (“C.C.C.”) 2323.13 (penalizing the possession 

of weapons by (1) those who have been convicted of various felony offenses that 

are not barred by state law, (2) those who have been convicted of misdemeanor 

domestic violence, and (3) those who are subject to certain domestic-violence 

protection orders) and 2323.171 (criminalizing the possession of firearm 

components such as bump stocks, which accelerate the rate of fire). 

{¶ 48} Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Buckeye Firearms, and Gary Witt—a 

member of Ohioans for Concealed Carry and a resident of Columbus—filed a 

complaint seeking a permanent injunction and a motion seeking a preliminary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

20 

injunction against the city’s enforcement of the new ordinances, asserting that the 

ordinances conflicted with R.C. 9.68, a general law permitting Ohioans to possess 

firearms, firearm parts, firearm components, and ammunition “[e]xcept as 

specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state 

law, or federal law.” 

{¶ 49} Relevant here, the city responded by asserting that Ohioans for

Concealed Carry and Buckeye Firearms had failed to sufficiently allege that any of 

their members would have standing to sue to enjoin the ordinances, and at the 

preliminary-injunction hearing, the parties did not present any evidence on the issue 

of associational standing. The trial court found that Ohioans for Concealed Carry, 

Buckeye Firearms, and Witt had standing to sue, and it permanently enjoined the 

city from enforcing the bump-stock ban, C.C.C. 2323.171, but denied the request 

to enjoin enforcement of the weapons-under-disability law, C.C.C. 2323.13. 

{¶ 50} The Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s 

judgment and remanded the case to the trial court, concluding that the trial court 

erred in granting a permanent injunction when the matter had been set for a hearing 

on the request for a preliminary injunction. 2019-Ohio-3105, 140 N.E.3d 1215, 

¶ 57, 59 (10th Dist.). It also held that Ohioans for Concealed Carry and Buckeye 

Firearms lacked standing to sue on behalf of their members. In so holding, the court 

of appeals looked only to the complaint and held that the associations had not 

adequately alleged that their members would have had standing to sue in their own 

right. Id. at ¶ 45. 

{¶ 51} Standing is established “in the same way as any other matter on

which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of 

evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan v. Defenders of 

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Therefore, 

the stage of the proceeding (such as on a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment 
January Term, 2020 

21 

on the pleadings, or a motion for summary judgment) dictates the standard of 

review. 

{¶ 52} The court of appeals reviewed the sufficiency of the complaint’s 

allegations when analyzing whether Ohioans for Concealed Carry and Buckeye 

Firearms have standing to sue on behalf of their members. However, it failed to 

apply the applicable standard of review. When a defendant challenges the adequacy 

of a complaint after the close of pleadings, a court construes as true the material 

allegations in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences from them in favor 

of the nonmoving party and decides whether it is beyond doubt that the plaintiff 

can prove no set of facts entitling it to relief. State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. 

Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 569-570, 664 N.E.2d 931 (1996). 

{¶ 53} An association has standing to bring a lawsuit on behalf of its

members when (1) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own 

right, (2) the interests the association seeks to protect are germane to its purpose, 

and (3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation 

of individual members in the lawsuit. State ex rel. Food & Water Watch v. State, 

153 Ohio St.3d 1, 2018-Ohio-555, 100 N.E.3d 391, ¶ 18. An association suing as 

a representative of its members must have “at least one member with standing to 

present, in his or her own right, the claim (or the type of claim) pleaded by the 

association.” United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown 

Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 555, 116 S.Ct. 1529, 134 L.Ed.2d 758 (1996). However, 

a member is not required to be a named plaintiff. See id. at 547, fn. 2 (standing was 

not defeated when a union was the named party and the trial court had denied a 

motion to amend the complaint to add members); see also Food & Water Watch at 

¶ 18 (associational standing may apply when neither the claim asserted nor the 

relief requested requires the participation of individual members). 

{¶ 54} The city has failed to show beyond doubt that Ohioans for Concealed 

Carry and Buckeye Firearms cannot prove that any of their respective members 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

22 

have been injured by the ordinances. The complaint describes both entities as 

associations of firearm owners and Columbus taxpayers, and it alleges that they 

“seek to enforce the public right of the people to keep and bear arms and all 

peripheral rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution of Ohio, the Constitution 

of the United States of America and R.C. 9.68.” It is possible that they could prove 

that at least one member from each association has been harmed by the ordinances, 

either because he or she has been prohibited from owning or possessing a rate-offire acceleration device or because he or she has been disarmed in Columbus by 

virtue of a disqualifying conviction or a domestic-violence protection order. 

Similarly, it is possible that they could prove that they each have a member who 

has been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution under those ordinances or who 

objects to spending tax dollars to enforce them. 

{¶ 55} “[A] plaintiff or relator is not required to prove his or her case at the 

pleading stage and need only give reasonable notice of the claim.” State ex rel. 

Harris v. Toledo, 74 Ohio St.3d 36, 37, 656 N.E.2d 334 (1995). The associations 

have met that burden here. 

{¶ 56} Lastly, the fact that the Columbus City Council repealed C.C.C.

2323.171 (the bump-stock ban) after we accepted jurisdiction in this case does not 

render any part of this case moot. As the United States Supreme Court has 

explained, “[t]he voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not ordinarily 

render a case moot because a dismissal for mootness would permit a resumption of 

the challenged conduct as soon as the case is dismissed.” Knox v. Serv. Emps. 

Internatl. Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 

(2012). Such “maneuvers designed to insulate a decision from review by [a court] 

must be viewed with a critical eye.” Id. And here, the associations have a 

continuing interest in vindicating their standing to challenge criminal ordinances 

that limit their members’ right to keep and bear arms and a continuing interest in 

seeking an award of attorney fees, costs, and nominal damages if they succeed in 
January Term, 2020 

23 

the trial court. See R.C. 9.68; Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 

U.S. 299, 308, 106 S.Ct. 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986), fn. 11. 

{¶ 57} I therefore would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals 

dismissing Ohioans for Concealed Carry and Buckeye Firearms from the lawsuit. 

Because this court did not accept any other issue for review, this matter should be 

remanded to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the request for a 

permanent injunction. 

_________________ 

 DEWINE, J., dissenting. 

{¶ 58} In my view, it was premature for the Tenth District Court of Appeals 

to determine that Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc., and Buckeye Firearms 

Foundation, Inc. (collectively, “the gun-rights groups”), lack standing. I would 

leave that matter for further proceedings in the trial court. I dissent from the 

majority’s decision to do otherwise. 

{¶ 59} The procedural posture of this case is unique. Gary Witt and the 

gun-rights groups filed a complaint seeking to enjoin the city’s enforcement of two 

Columbus code provisions. At the same time, the gun-rights groups and Witt filed 

a motion for a preliminary injunction. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court 

permanently enjoined the city from enforcing Columbus City Code 2323.171. 

Importantly, at no point in the trial court did the city move to dismiss the gun-rights 

groups or Witt from the lawsuit for lack of standing. It did argue generally, 

however, that injunctive relief should be denied because all the parties lacked 

standing. 

{¶ 60} On appeal in the Tenth District, the city argued that the trial court 

should not have granted the injunction, because none of the parties had standing. 

The Tenth District concluded that Witt had standing to maintain a claim under R.C. 

733.59. 2019-Ohio-3105, 140 N.E.3d 1215, ¶ 32 (10th Dist.). The court of appeals 

also determined that the trial court should not have issued a permanent injunction 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

24 

when the matter had been set for a hearing on only a preliminary injunction. Id. at 

¶ 56-57. As a consequence, it remanded the matter to the trial court for further 

proceedings. 

{¶ 61} The city did not challenge the holding that Witt possessed standing. 

So we must assume for present purposes that the court of appeals’ decision on that 

issue was correct. Curiously, though, after concluding that Witt had standing, the 

Tenth District then concluded that the gun-rights groups did not have standing. Id. 

at ¶ 46. This was unnecessary. On a claim for injunctive relief, only one plaintiff 

needs to establish standing to assert a claim in order for a court to have subjectmatter jurisdiction over the claim. See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & 

Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 52, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006), 

fn. 2 (noting that the court of appeals did not determine whether other plaintiffs had 

standing, because the presence of one plaintiff with standing is sufficient to make 

a case justiciable); Beaver Excavating Co. v. Testa, 134 Ohio St.3d 565, 2012-Ohio5776, 983 N.E.2d 1317, ¶ 16 (“[I]t is sufficient for purposes of jurisdiction that at 

least one plaintiff has standing for the claims of the remaining plaintiffs to be heard 

and the court to proceed to decide the case on the merits”). Based on the 

determination by the court of appeals that Witt had standing, the trial court had the 

authority to issue injunctive relief. So there was no need for the court of appeals to 

decide whether the gun-rights groups possessed standing. 

{¶ 62} The majority argues that a remand would relieve “appellants of their 

well-established burden to establish standing and present the court with a justiciable 

claim.” Majority opinion at ¶ 39. Indeed, the authority cited by the majority deals 

largely with whether a claim is justiciable. See id. at ¶ 41, citing Lujan v. Defenders 

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). But of 

course, “justiciablity” is not the issue here. Because we must assume that Witt had 

standing, the claim is justiciable. See Dept. of Commerce v. United States House 

of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 330-334, 119 S.Ct. 765, 142 L.Ed.2d 797 (1999) 
January Term, 2020 

25 

(holding that the presence of one plaintiff with standing is all that is needed to make 

claim justiciable, and finding it unnecessary to consider the standing of the other 

plaintiffs). 

{¶ 63} It is of course true that even though only one plaintiff need have 

standing for a court to issue injunctive relief, a court may still dismiss parties 

without a personal stake in the outcome. See Planned Parenthood of Idaho, Inc. v. 

Wasden, 376 F.3d 908, 918 (9th Cir.2004), fn. 6 (noting that because one plaintiff 

had standing, there was no reason to consider the standing of the other plaintiffs for 

purposes of appeal, but on remand, the district court may need to determine whether 

the party was a proper plaintiff because only proper parties may enforce an 

injunction). But the problem that I have with the majority’s decision to affirm the 

court of appeals’ dismissal of the gun-rights groups as parties for lack of standing 

is that the groups were never individually put to the burden of proving standing in 

the proceeding below. The city did not move to dismiss any of the plaintiffs from 

the lawsuit for lack of standing nor did it move for summary judgment as to any of 

the plaintiffs. The city did argue that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant 

injunctive relief because all three of the plaintiffs lacked standing, but all that was 

necessary to defeat this argument was a showing that any one plaintiff had standing. 

{¶ 64} As the other dissent points out, it may be possible for the gun-rights 

groups to establish associational standing by showing that they have a member who 

has been injured or threatened with injury by the Columbus provisions. Dissenting 

opinion of Kennedy, J., at ¶ 54. The matter is being remanded to the trial court. If 

the city believes there are grounds to dismiss the gun-rights groups from the case 

for lack of standing, it can file an appropriate motion, the gun-rights groups can 

respond, and the trial court can rule accordingly. 

{¶ 65} A remand that allows for the possibility of further proceedings on 

the standing issue seems particularly appropriate here. The court of appeals 

reversed the judgment granting a permanent injunction because the trial court’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

26 

consolidation of the matter with the preliminary injunction deprived the city of “a 

full and fair opportunity to present evidence.” 2019-Ohio-3105, 140 N.E.3d 1215, 

at ¶ 57. The gun-rights groups deserve the same consideration.

{¶ 66} I would reverse the decision of the court of appeals dismissing the 

gun-rights groups from the action for lack of standing and remand the matter to the 

trial court. Because the majority does otherwise, I respectfully dissent. 

 FISCHER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 

_________________ 

Haynes, Kessler, Myers & Postalakis, Inc., David S. Kessler, Stephen P. 

Postalakis, and Eric B. Hershberger; and Barney DeBrosse, L.L.C. and Derek A. 

DeBrosse, for appellant Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. 

James P. Sean Maloney; and Ronald Lemieux, for appellant Buckeye 

Firearms Foundation, Inc. 

Zach Klein, Columbus City Attorney, Richard N. Coglianese, City Solicitor 

General, and Lara N. Baker-Morrish, for appellees. 

_________________