CINCINNATI (WKRC) – The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that some convicted felons can apply to have their gun rights restored, clarifying how Ohio law works when a single conviction triggers both state and federal firearm prohibitions.

The ruling was 6-1 by the justices, with Justice Jennifer Brunner being the only dissenting opinion.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that some convicted felons can apply to have their gun rights restored, clarifying how Ohio law works when a single conviction triggers both state and federal firearm prohibitions. (WKRC, Provided)

The ruling stems from a case involving an Allen County man, Patrick Heffley, convicted of domestic violence in 2006. That conviction barred him from owning a gun under both federal and state law, which is legally referred to as being under disability.

“A disability is most often created by having a conviction for an offense of violence or the possession or sale of illegal drugs,” said Glaser Law Attorney Angela Glaser. “Federal law has an equivalent disability. So, you could have a disability in state court and federal court.”

When Heffley applied in 2023 for the state to restore his gun rights, the court denied the request because of his federal gun disability.

“The importance of Heffley’s case is that when he went into his county and said, ‘Please relieve me of this disability. I’d like to carry a firearm now.’ The court read the statute in Ohio that allows him to apply for the relief and said, ‘There is language here that says if you are otherwise prohibited by law from carrying a firearm, you are not eligible to seek relief,’” said Glaser. “The state said he is not eligible because that language ‘being otherwise prohibited from carrying a firearm’ applies to the fact that he can’t lawfully carry a firearm under federal law. The trial court agreed and said, ‘You’re not eligible.’ So, Heffley appealed his case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals disagreed.”

The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision says that if a single conviction leads to both a state and federal gun disability, Ohio law still allows the person to apply to restore their gun rights. If there were one conviction leading to a state gun disability and a separate conviction leading to a federal gun disability, that would be a different thing for the courts to decide.

Glaser, who works on these types of cases, said the ruling could change how lawyers who represent these felons handle court proceedings on behalf of their clients because this ruling sets a precedent.

“If you’re in a county where your county prosecutor is consistently just telling judges, ‘He’s ineligible,’ and your case becomes a slam dunk loser at that point, then this case certainly changes your practice, because the door has now been opened,” said Glaser.

Glaser said the alternative would have created a legal trap for people seeking relief.

“I think that this was the right decision for Heffley’s case, especially,” said Glaser. “If the Ohio Supreme Court had said that Heffley was not eligible to apply to seek relief, then he would find himself in a catch-22. So, if he has to relieve himself under federal law before asking for relief under state law, this is an extremely difficult procedure.”

Even with the ruling, applications can still be denied by courts.

“I could cite numerous examples of individuals who have very old convictions who own companies and are very successful and are contributing members of society who have been granted relief, and I could cite many examples of people who have applied for relief who have recent convictions, strings of convictions that give judges great pause and concern for giving them the ability to lawfully carry a firearm,” said Glaser. “There are many applications that are denied, and the ones that are granted, in my experience, deserve to be granted.”

State Rep. Dani Isaacsohn, a Democrat who represents the 24th district and the Ohio House minority leader, raised concerns about the public safety impact.

“When we let people who are more likely to use guns to commit violent crimes have access to more weapons, it makes all of us less safe,” said Isaacsohn. “I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to think that people with a history of domestic violence who’ve previously lost their ability to wield a deadly weapon should get more access to deadly weapons. Either we care about public safety or we don’t.”

Isaacsohn said Ohio lawmakers have refused to pass common sense gun laws and have prioritized extreme legislation, leading to communities that are less safe.

“People are tired of violence in their neighborhoods. People are tired of guns flooding their streets,” said Isaacsohn. “When we say common sense gun laws, I mean the things that the vast majority of people agree on. Things like background checks, waiting periods, and keeping guns out of the hands of people who have committed domestic violence. The things that law enforcement say are helpful and would keep us safer.”

Women Helping Women, which supports domestic violence victims, said in a statement that while the ruling answers a legal question, the decision is “deeply concerning.”

The statement added: “We know from decades of experience and extensive research that access to a firearm in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%. Survivors deserve to know that their safety remains the highest priority in our communities and justice system.”

Under the process for restoring gun rights, one requirement a judge must find is that the applicant has led a law-abiding life since release and appears likely to continue doing so.

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WSYX) — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has filed a lawsuit against an ambulance company accused of leaving patients with unexpected medical transport bills by failing to disclose that it was out of network.

The lawsuit alleges Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service of Ohio did not inform patients before transporting them between medical facilities that it is out of network for all private health insurers, as required by state law.

“Patients being transferred between hospitals have enough to worry about without getting hit with unexpected bills weeks later,” Yost said. “Consumers deserve to know when a company is out of network and what costs they may face before services are provided.”

The lawsuit alleges four violations of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act: failing to inform consumers of the right to receive an estimate; billing for out-of-network care after insurance reimbursement; making false or misleading statements regarding cost; and requiring consumers to enter a transaction on terms that the company knew were substantially one-sided.

Yost’s office said it has received complaints from more than 20 people transported by Superior between July 2024 and June 2026 who were billed hundreds or thousands of dollars for the transportation.

According to the lawsuit, people received treatment at hospitals within their insurance networks when physicians ordered ambulance transportation to another in-network facility. The hospitals arranged the transportation with Superior, but patients were not informed of Superior’s out-of-network status.

The Ohio Attorney General’s Office also alleges Superior failed to provide consumers with estimated transportation costs before service, as required in Ohio, and instead presented payment authorization forms after the transports.

The lawsuit seeks restitution for affected consumers, along with civil penalties and injunctive relief.

ABC 6 has reached out to Superior and is awaiting a reply.

ABC 6 has reached out to XXX and is awaiting a reply.ABC 6 has reached out to XXX and is awaiting a reply.

AB

An Ohio common pleas court ruled that a man with two misdemeanors and one felony domestic violence conviction couldn’t have his right to bear arms restored. the Supreme Court disagreed.

Advertisement

Ray Marcano is a Columbus Dispatch contributing columnist.

A bill working its way through the Ohio House would create a repeat domestic violence offender registry that’s patterned after Tennessee’s recently passed law.

Now, the bill’s proponents should go further and include a measure that prohibits anyone convicted of domestic violence from owning a firearm or getting those rights restored.

This issue surfaced after the Allen County Court of Common Pleas ruled that, under federal law, a man convicted of two misdemeanors and one felony count of domestic violence couldn’t have his right to bear arms restored.

An appeals court and now the Supreme Court disagreed, and the case is heading back to Allen County, which will decide whether the man, Patrick Heffley, can get his guns back.

The laws that govern how a citizen can lose the right to possess firearms and the appeals process for regaining that right are complicated.

They shouldn’t be, at least not in Ohio.

Just say no.

Flaw in our law must be fixed

Under federal law, anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor charge can’t possess a firearm.  But Ohio law doesn’t automatically take away guns in these cases, so courts decide whether to restore rights.

More: Ohio Supreme Court says people convicted of domestic violence can get guns back

That shouldn’t be.

Currently, judges determine whether an offender has been reformed and is likely to continue leading a law-abiding life. Maybe the person has turned over a new leaf and has become a respected, productive community member. That would be great.

Just say no.

Those are three easy words, especially since 157 people died as a result of domestic violence in the 12 months ending June 2025, the most in a decade, according to the Ohio Domestic Violence Network.

More than eight in 10 deaths involved a firearm, showing there’s no way someone convicted of domestic violence should own a gun, even if the offense happened decades ago.

So, this gives the bill’s sponsors an opportunity to fix a flaw in the law.

I know the arguments that would justify inaction. There’s no guarantee that mirroring federal law will stop deaths here. We’re a society of second chances and should embrace those who have repented.

That’s true, but society also has laws with consequences for disobeying them. One should be straightforward.

If you beat up your partner in an act of violence, you lose the ability to own a weapon that can be used to perpetrate more violence.

Ohio’s proposed law, House Bill 846, by Rep. Phil Plummer, R-Butler Twp., and Rep. Cecil Thomas, D-Cincinnati, would mandate repeat offenders register for anywhere for two to 10 years with their name, photo, date of birth and location.

Plummer and Thomas should add to their bill and ban these offenders from having firearms.

That should be.

Ray Marcano is a Columbus Dispatch contributing columnist. The longtime journalist is the former national president of the Society of Professional Journalists, a two-time Pulitzer juror, and a Fulbright fellow.