Case Name: McCollum v. The City of Cincinnati
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1935-05-27
Citations: 51 Ohio App. 67
Docket Number: 
Parties: McCollum v. The City of Cincinnati.
Judges: Ross, P. J., and Matthews, J., concur,
Reporter: Ohio Appellate Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 67–68

Head Matter:
McCollum v. The City of Cincinnati.
(Decided May 27, 1935.)
Mr. John W. Cowell, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. B. J. Paul, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Hamilton, J.
Plaintiff in error, McCollum, was convicted in tbe Municipal Court of tbe city of Cincinnati of the offense of discharging firearms within the city, in violation of the ordinance of the city of Cincinnati which makes it an offense to discharge firearms of any description within the city, except in military array, self-defense, and in enforcing the laws provided in the Cincinnati Code of Ordinances.
Prom that conviction, McCollum prosecutes error directly to this court.
The claim is that the ordinance is unconstitutional, in that it contravenes the right secured to the citizens by Sections 1 and 4 of Article I, Constitution of Ohio, and by Article 2 of tbe Amendments to tbe Federal Constitution.
The complaint that tbe ordinance violates Article 2 of tbe Amendments of tbe Federal Constitution may be disposed of by tbe statement that that provision has reference to tbe military arm of tbe Government, and is not designed as a limitation upon tbe state governments in reference to their own citizens, but relates exclusively to tbe powers under tbe Federal Government. Burke v. State, 104 Ohio St., 220, 135 N. E., 644, and cases therein cited.
Section 1, of Article I of tbe Ohio Constitution, embraces tbe rights therein enumerated, subject to only such restraints as are necessary to tbe common welfare. Tbe city ordinance in question pertains to tbe common welfare and is regulatory under tbe police power of tbe state. Palmer & Crawford v. Tingle, 55 Ohio St., 423, 45 N. E., 313.
Section 4, Article I of tbe Ohio Constitution, refers only to the military arm of tbe state.
Tbe ordinance in question does not contravene either the state or the Federal Constitution.
It is suggested in tbe brief that McCollum bad tbe right to kill a dog, which be claims to have been tbe reason for tbe discharging of firearms, and claims to have been given that right under Section 5838, General Code. Tbe dog was killed while fighting tbe dog belonging to the accused. Tbe statute does not mention billing of a dog while engaged in a fight with another dog.
We find no prejudicial error in the record of the Municipal Court and its judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Ross, P. J., and Matthews, J., concur,