Three residents — Carol Donovan, David Iannelli, and Brooke Handley — filed their civil lawsuit against the city and City Attorney Mark Yurick on March 31, 2021, challenging the city ordinance, which ended a longstanding prohibition on carrying concealed weapons in the city building.
The residents are being represented by Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund and locally by the Lebanon law firm of Gray & Duning. The city and Yurick are represented by the Finney Law Firm of Cincinnati.
The lawsuit alleges the ordinance conflicts with state laws prohibiting concealed carry in government buildings that contain courtrooms. Lebanon’s City Council meets in the Lebanon Municipal Court courtroom on the second floor of the City Building, 50 N. Broadway.
In March 2020, Lebanon’s city council enacted an ordinance that authorizes the concealed carry of handguns within Lebanon’s city building, except during the operation of the Lebanon Municipal Court.
According to lawsuit, the residents sent a letter to Yurick requesting his office seek an injunction “requiring the city to comply with Ohio law and return to its prohibition on the possession of firearms within the City Building.”
However, on March 2, 2021, the city responded by letter and stated that it declined to seek injunctive relief, which resulted in the residents filing their civil action and the city filing a motion to dismiss.
In the denial of the city’s motion to dismiss, Tepe said the residents properly brought the lawsuit forward and state law allows a municipal taxpayer “may institute suit in his own name, on behalf of the municipal corporation” in order to restrain the municipalities’ abuse of corporate power.
In the decision, Tepe said the residents have stated a claim, which if proven, may entitle them to relief, in finding the city’s motion to dismiss is not well taken. He also said the residents have standing to bring their declaratory judgment claim and that they have adequately stated a claim for declaratory judgment.
“[T]he Court finds that there is a genuine dispute as to the legal validity of the ordinance. Further, it is not disputed by either party that plaintiffs’ and defendants’ interest in this dispute are adverse. Further, the ordinance has taken effect and is currently in place. Thus, the controversy is immediate and real,” Tepe said in the decision.
“The residents we represent ask only that the city comply with state laws intended to keep courthouses and similar government buildings safe,” Len Kamdang, director of litigation strategy and trials for Everytown Law, said in a March statement announcing the suit’s filing. “People should be able to take part in the democratic process without the threat of violence or intimidation.”
Rebecca Simpson Heimlich of the Finney Law Firm, said it’s helpful to get insight from the court, but they believe the ordinance is not in conflict with state law.
Attorneys representing the residents could not be reached for comment Monday.
About the Author
