Cite as McCollum v. Cincinnati, 51 Ohio App. 67 (1935)

                 McCOLLUM v. CITY OF CINCINNATI.

           Court of Appeals of Ohio, Hamilton County.

                          May 27, 1935.

     Affirmed.

     Petition in error dismissed 130 Ohio St. 159.

     John W. Cowell, of Cincinnati, for plaintiff in error.

     R. J. Paul, of Cincinnati, for defendant in error.

     HAMILTON, Judge.

     Plaintiff in error, McCollum, was convicted in the municipal
court of the 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.

     From 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 the
Amendments to the Federal Constitution.

     The complaint that the ordinance violates article 2 of the
Amendments of the Federal Constitution may be disposed of by the
statement that that provision has reference to the military arm of
the government, and is not designed as a limitation upon the state
governments in reference to their own citizens, but relates
exclusively to the powers under the federal government. Burke v.
State, 104 Ohio St. 220, and cases therein cited.

     Section 1 of article I of the Ohio Constitution embraces the
rights therein enumerated, subject to only such restraints as are
necessary to the common welfare. The city ordinance in question
pertains to the common welfare and is regulatory under the police
power of the state. Palmer & Crawford v. Tingle, 55 Ohio St. 423.

     Section 4, article I, of the Ohio Constitution, refers only to
the military arm of the state.

     The ordinance in question does not contravene either the state
or the Federal Constitution.

     It is suggested in the brief that McCollum had the right to
kill a dog, which he claims to have been the reason for the
discharging of firearms, and claims to have been given that right
under section 5538, General Code. The dog was killed while fighting
the dog belonging to the accused. The statute does not mention
killing 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.