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.