The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a person whose single Ohio felony conviction triggered both state and federal firearms bans may ask a trial court to restore their gun rights, rejecting the argument that the federal ban alone makes such applicants ineligible.

The 6-1 decision in State v. Heffley, issued June 2, resolves a legal catch-22 that had blocked some Ohioans with felony convictions from using a state process meant to give them a path back to lawful firearm possession. Justice R. Patrick DeWine wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and Justices Patrick Fischer, Joseph Deters, Dan Hawkins and Megan Shanahan. Justice Jennifer Brunner, the court’s lone Democrat, dissented.

The case began in Allen County, where Patrick Heffley was found guilty of domestic violence, a fourth-degree felony, in 2006. He served a prison term, paid his fines and court costs and was discharged from post-release control. The conviction barred him from possessing a firearm under Ohio law and also triggered a separate federal prohibition.

In August 2023, Heffley applied for relief from his state firearms disability under R.C. 2923.14, a statute that lets people prohibited from possessing firearms petition the common pleas court in their home county to have those rights restored. The Allen County Court of Common Pleas denied the application, and the Third District Court of Appeals reversed that denial. The state, represented by the Allen County prosecutor’s office, appealed to the Supreme Court.

To qualify for relief under the Ohio statute, an applicant must show, among other things, that they are “not otherwise prohibited by law” from having firearms. The trial court read that phrase to include the federal ban under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), which prohibits firearm possession by people convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison.

That reading created a loop the majority described as a stalemate: an Ohio court could lift the federal ban by restoring a person’s state rights, but it would be powerless to restore those state rights because the federal ban still existed. Because every Ohio violent-felony conviction triggers both bans, the court noted, the statute would be effectively useless for the people it was written to help.

Federal law includes an exception. A conviction is no longer disqualifying once a person’s civil rights — the rights to vote, hold office and serve on a jury — have been restored, unless the restoration itself still bars firearm possession. Heffley’s civil rights were restored by operation of Ohio law after his release. Granting his state application, the majority found, would restore his firearm rights in full and remove the federal ban along with it.

How the court read the statute

Much of the ruling turned on a single word: “otherwise.” DeWine wrote that the term means “in a different way or manner,” and concluded that it refers to a firearms ban arising from a separate conviction — not the same conviction an applicant is asking the court to clear. Because Heffley’s state and federal disabilities both stem from his 2006 conviction, the court held, he has only one disabling conviction and is not “otherwise prohibited by law.”

The majority also pointed to the statute’s text, which says relief “restores the applicant to all civil firearm rights to the full extent enjoyed by any citizen,” and to a 2011 amendment in which the General Assembly said it was clarifying that the state process removes the federal ban as well.

Responding to the dissent, DeWine wrote that policy disagreements belong with lawmakers, not the court: “Our task is to apply the laws that have been enacted, not the ones that the dissenting jurist thinks should have been enacted.”

Brunner’s dissent

Brunner would have upheld the trial court’s denial. She argued that the federal ban applies to Heffley independently of state law and that the phrase “otherwise prohibited by law” includes that federal prohibition, even when it is triggered by the same conviction.

She also warned of a practical consequence. Under a 2021 Ohio Supreme Court decision, people convicted of certain misdemeanor domestic-violence offenses cannot regain firearm rights, Brunner noted, yet the majority’s ruling allows some people convicted of felony domestic violence to do so. She called that a “galling disparity in the law” and “an absurd result,” and wrote that the decision “lessens the protection for future victims of felony-level domestic violence.”

“Moreover, majority opinions like this one harm the rule of law,” Brunner wrote. “I strongly dissent from the court’s judgment.”

What happens next

The ruling does not restore Heffley’s firearm rights. The court affirmed the Third District and sent the case back to the Allen County Court of Common Pleas, which retains discretion to grant or deny his application. The statute requires a judge to find, among other things, that the applicant has led a law-abiding life since release and appears likely to continue doing so.

Because R.C. 2923.14 applications are filed in the county where the applicant lives, the decision sets a statewide precedent that common pleas courts in Seneca and Sandusky counties will follow when they weigh future firearms-disability petitions.

Heffley was represented by attorney Andrea Henning of Huffman, Kelley & Brock, L.L.C. The state was represented by Allen County Prosecuting Attorney Destiny R. Caldwell and Assistant Prosecuting Attorney John R. Willamowski Jr.

The full decision is available through the court’s published opinion.