local law vs state law

[trigueoh]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

My question is - when a local municipality copies ORC into their local ordinances what happens if Ohio revised code is changed? Does the local ordinance automatically change? For example:

City ABC copied Ohio code from 1976 and placed it in their local ordinances and it reads as follows:


505.12 COLORING RABBITS OR BABY POULTRY; SALE OR DISPLAY OF POULTRY.
(a) No person shall dye or otherwise color any rabbit or baby poultry, including, but not limited to, chicks and ducklings. No person shall sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, raffle or give away any rabbit or poultry which has been dyed or otherwise colored. No poultry younger than four weeks of age may be sold, given away or otherwise distributed to any person in lots of less than six. Stores, shops, vendors and others offering young poultry for sale or other distribution shall provide and operate brooders or other heating devices that may be necessary to maintain poultry in good health, and shall keep adequate food and water available to the poultry at all times. (ORC 925.62)

And lets say that in 2012 Ohio revised code changes and deletes the portion making it illegal to sell, raffle or give away dyed rabbits or poultry. So at the state level it is now legal.

Since City ABC references ORC in their local ordinance would selling dyed rabbits and poultry now be allowed in the city automatically until they opted to rewrite their ordinance?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[tranquility]

Both are the law. Can you comply with both by not selling a dyed rabbit? Yes.

If they are contradictory:
One cannot keep a dyed rabbit. (local)
One cannot get rid of a dyed rabbit. (state)

Then the state would have precedence.

 

[trigueoh]

I think I may have worded my question wrong, so I'm going to try this again

1995 Original ohio revised code 444.44 states it is illegal to own an elephant

In 1995 City decides to copy ORC 444.44 and add it to their local ordinances stating it is illegal to own elephants (ORC 444.44)

then in 2012 Ohio legislature strike ORC 444.44 thus making it legal to own an elephant.

Since the city ordinance states that it is illegal to own an elephant AND references (ORC 444.44) will the city law outlawing ownership of elephants still stand even though they reference an ohio revised code that is no longer in effect.

I know that due to home rule they can have their own laws as long as they don't conflict with state law. I am questioning whether having ORC 444.44 written in their ordinance would nullify their law once the state law is removed

 

[tranquility]

I am uncertain as to why they did what they did. But, it would be the wording and not the reference which is the law.

 

[ecmst12]

I sense a homework question...