Members of Bowling Green’s municipal administration made it clear to park board members Monday night that
the city is in a difficult position when it comes to a proposed ordinance that would allow guns in the
city’s parks.
The ordinance would bring the city in compliance with the Ohio Revised Code following rulings made by the
Ohio Supreme Court.
“It’s a sad time. It’s a shame that we have to be in this position at all,” said Councilwoman Sandy
Rowland during the meeting.
Currently, a city ordinance prohibits firearms within Bowling Green’s parks; however, this conflicts with
state law and recent rulings by the court that “gave persons in Ohio the right to carry a handgun unless
federal or state law prohibits them from doing so,” according to a BG council document provided to the
Sentinel. Consequently, Bowling Green’s police have not been enforcing the city’s ordinance disallowing
guns in parks due to the conflict with the ORC.
The proposed city ordinance would, however, continue to prohibit the “use, carry or possession of a
firearm within park property if its intended use is to hunt, trap or pursue wildlife unless specifically
permitted by the Safety Director,” the document noted.
The legislation had its genesis in correspondence with firearms-related groups which pointed out the
state law and court rulings to city administrators. The matter had its first reading at the May 19
meeting of city council, and under council procedure it is to receive another two readings before being
put to a vote.
At Monday’s Park Board meeting, Mayor Richard Edwards told board members that the issue “is a very
disturbing thing for many of us,” even those who strongly support Second Amendment rights.
“The whole concept of guns in the parks is more than incongruous.”
Noting the Ohio Supreme Court rulings, he said “as a community we have very little choice” than to permit
firearms in the parks. He indicated that the city does have the power to deny the weapons in park
buildings.
He said that Upper Arlington, a suburb of Columbus – “they had no choice at all, all cities are caught in
the same web,” Edwards indicated – approved a similar change in its city ordinance, but “they did it
with a form of protest there, expressing grave concerns with this,” in the hopes that the state
legislature would re-examine the issue.
The matter has raised the apparent ire of some Bowling Green residents; Edwards noted council members
have heard from citizens on the matter “who don’t quite understand why we are caught up in this web.”

Edwards hoped that council’s eventual vote on the legislation “might be done in a way that might draw
attention to the concerns of our fellow citizens” which, in turn, might make their way to the Ohio
General Assembly.
Answering a question posed by board member Kent Strange as to what the city stands to lose if it does not
go forward with the legislation, Municipal Administrator John Fawcett said the city could make itself
subject to a lawsuit, one that it almost certainly could not win.
“So there’s that liability out there,” he said, recounting the experience of the city of Clyde, which was
sued in a related case and assessed a fee of $70,000 for their violation, in addition to other legal
fees they incurred.
“So there is going to be a potential substantial loss to the city if we’re not in compliance, and if
we’re sued,” he said.
“It would be a near slam dunk that the city of Bowling Green would … become guilty.”
“It’s a painful time to be in the administration on city council in Bowling Green,” said Rowland,
“because we are between a rock and a hard space and it’s extremely serious and uncomfortable. Oh, how I
wish there was a solution.”
“Am I worried? Yeah. We just had some bad things happen” nationally in terms of violence, she said, which
prompted some citizens to contact council members out of concern.