OHIO LEGISLATIVE SERVICE COMMISSION
Office of Research Legislative Budget
www.lsc.ohio.gov and Drafting Office
H.B. 243 Bill Analysis
134th General Assembly
Click here for H.B. 243’s Fiscal Note
Version: As Passed by the House
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Cutrona
Effective Date:
Samuel Duling, Research Analyst
SUMMARY
 Establishes knives as arms necessary for the exercise of fundamental individual rights,
along with firearms, parts of firearms, the components of a firearm, and firearm
ammunition.
 Repeals any contrary license, permission, restriction, delay, process, ordinance, rule,
regulation, resolution, practice, or other action or any threat of citation, prosecution, or
other legal process.
DETAILED ANALYSIS
Regulation of knives prohibited
The bill prohibits “any ordinance, rule, regulation, resolution, practice, or other action or
any threat of citation, prosecution, or other legal process” from inhibiting a person’s ability to
“own, possess, purchase, acquire, transport, store, carry, sell, transfer, manufacture, or keep”
any knife. Current law prohibits any such inhibition of a person’s ability to own, possess,
purchase, acquire, transport, store, carry, sell, transfer, manufacture, or keep any firearm, part
of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition. Under the bill, a “knife” is defined as “a
cutting instrument and includes a sharpened or pointed blade.” The bill also defines “arms” as
both knives and firearms.1
Additionally, the bill “preempts, supersedes, and declares null and void” any license,
permission, restriction, delay, process, ordinance, rule, regulation, resolution, practice, or other
action or any threat of citation, prosecution, or other legal process that “interferes with the
fundamental individual right” of people to protect “themselves, their families, and others from
1 R.C. 9.68; R.C. 2923.11, not in the bill.
December 15, 2021
Office of Research and Drafting LSC Legislative Budget Office
intruders and attackers” or that interferes with “other legitimate uses of constitutionally
protected arms, including hunting and sporting activities.”2
The bill allows a person, group, or entity who is affected by any manner of regulation of
knives by a political subdivision to bring a civil action against the political subdivision in order to
seek damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or a combination of those remedies. Any
damages awarded as a result of such an action must be paid by the offending political
subdivision, which must also pay for reasonable expenses either (1) if the plaintiff prevails in
the civil action or (2) if the ordinance, rule, regulation, resolution, practice, or action or the
manner of enforcement being challenged is repealed or rescinded after the civil action is filed
but before a final court determination is made.3
The bill does not apply to the regulation or prohibition of knives in areas zoned for
residential or agricultural uses. Nor does the bill apply to a zoning ordinance that specifies the
hours of operation or the geographic areas where the commercial sale of such items may occur,
as long as such a zoning ordinance does not result in a de facto prohibition of the commercial
sale of such items.4
COMMENT
The bill has the potential to be challenged under the Home Rule Amendment to the
Ohio Constitution as applied to municipal corporations and charter counties. Municipal
corporations and charter counties have the power to “adopt and enforce local police, sanitary,
and other similar laws as are not in conflict with general laws.”5 By prohibiting a municipal
corporation or charter county from regulating knives, the bill might infringe upon this authority.
An ordinance must not conflict with a statute of the General Assembly that is a “general law.”
Not all laws enacted by the General Assembly are “general laws” for home rule purposes. A law
is a general law only if it:
 Is part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment;
 Applies to all parts of the state alike and operates uniformly throughout the state;
 Sets forth police, sanitary, or similar regulations, rather than purporting only to grant or
limit legislative power of a municipal corporation to set forth police, sanitary, or similar
regulations [emphasis added]; and
 Prescribes a rule of conduct upon citizens generally.6
2 R.C. 9.68(A).
3 R.C. 9.68(B).
4 R.C. 9.68(D).
5 Ohio Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 3 and Article X, Section 3.
6 Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149 (2002).
P a g e |2 H.B. 243
As Passed by the House
Office of Research and Drafting LSC Legislative Budget Office
HISTORY
Action Date
Introduced 03-31-21
Reported, H. Government Oversight 12-09-21
Passed House (57-36) 12-09-21
H0243-PH-134/ts
P a g e |3 H.B. 243
As Passed by the House


Statutes affected:
As Reported By House Committee: 9.68
As Passed By House: 9.68