Decided July 11, 1994. Order Denying Rehearing August 30, 1994. Theresa Rittinger Schaefer, Asst. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The weapons are specified by brand name and model, not generically or by defined categories.
Plaintiffs also contend that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.
No equal protection claim is raised. It did not address the issue of facial validity but found it vague as applied to two of the weapons in question. We find the ordinance unconstitutionally vague on its face and therefore do not reach the bill of attainder issue. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.