COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court issued a significant decision clarifying the interplay between state and federal laws that impose a disability on an individual from owning firearms, this time in favor of a person convicted of a felony who served his prison term and sought to have his rights reinstated.
The court issued its 6-1 decision in Ohio v. Heffley on June 2, affirming the lower appeals court’s decision, and remanding the case back to the trial court for an ultimate decision.
The crux of the case: the seeming catch-22 of the federal prohibition on firearms triggered by a state conviction of a violent felony.
In 2006, Patrick Heffley was convicted of fourth-degree felony domestic violence and served a 12-month prison sentence. The conviction barred him from possessing a firearm under state law and also triggered a federal prohibition under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1).
In 2023, 17 years later, Mr. Heffley applied for relief from the state-imposed disability under R.C. 2923.14. It’s notable that the court’s decision affirms that Mr. Heffley paid his debt to society, writing, “He served a prison term, paid his fines and court costs, and was successfully discharged from post-release control.”
However, the trial court denied his application because of the federal prohibition, which itself was triggered by the state conviction.
“The trial court reasoned that because Heffley was ‘otherwise prohibited’ from owning a firearm under federal law, he was unable to have his state disability removed, even though removal of the state disability would also remove the federal disability,” the court observes.
The state Supreme Court notes the correct course of action in how to interpret the two interrelated laws (a course of action which the appeals court correctly interpreted by remanding the case to the district court):
Because the granting of Heffley’s application for relief from his state firearms disability would restore the rights suspended by Heffley’s domestic-violence conviction, it would also provide relief from his federal disability.
It was, however, the state’s appeal that had delayed any positive outcome for Mr. Heffley, which the court acknowledged, writing, “We accepted the state’s appeal on the question whether a federal firearms disability arising from a state conviction prevents a trial court from granting relief from a state firearms disability.”
It’s notable that in clarifying the appropriate application of the law and remanding the case to the trial court, the Ohio Supreme Court has still left open the door for subjectivity, allowing the lower court, “…to make a discretionary decision whether to grant Heffley’s request for relief from his disability.”
The case addresses the larger, looming question in the public square about whether or not felons should have firearms rights restored after serving their time and paying any penalties.
