Key Takeaways
- The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in State v. Heffley that a federal firearms ban does not prevent state courts from restoring gun rights for a single conviction.
- Patrick Heffley, convicted of felony domestic violence in 2006, petitioned to restore his firearm rights after leading a law-abiding life since then.
- A trial court initially denied Heffley’s request, citing the federal ban, but the Supreme Court rejected this reasoning as creating a legal stalemate.
- Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented, arguing that the federal ban should be removed first, highlighting potential disparities in the law.
- This ruling potentially impacts many Ohioans seeking to recover firearm rights after completing their sentences.
Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
COLUMBUS, OHIO — The Ohio Supreme Court has cleared a path for some Ohioans to win back their firearm rights after a single conviction triggered overlapping state and federal bans.
In a 6-1 decision issued June 2, the court ruled in State v. Heffley that a federal firearms prohibition does not block a trial court from restoring a person’s state gun rights when both bans flow from the same Ohio conviction.
The case centers on Patrick Heffley, an Allen County man convicted of felony domestic violence in 2006. That conviction barred him from owning a firearm under both Ohio and federal law. He served his prison term, paid his fines and court costs, and completed post-release control.
Seventeen years later, in 2023, Heffley applied under Ohio law to have his firearms disability lifted. The statute lets a person petition a common pleas court for relief if they have led a law-abiding life and appear likely to keep doing so.
A trial court denied him. The judge reasoned that because federal law still banned Heffley from owning a gun, he was “otherwise prohibited by law” and therefore ineligible for state relief. The problem was circular. Federal law lifts its ban once the state restores a person’s rights, but the trial court said it could not restore those rights because the federal ban was still in place.
Writing for the majority, Justice R. Patrick DeWine rejected that logic. He explained that “otherwise prohibited” points to a separate conviction, not the same one already before the court. Because Heffley had only one disabling conviction, he was not otherwise barred.
The court noted that the state’s position would create a stalemate that rendered Ohio’s restoration statute useless. Every Ohio violent-felony conviction triggers both a state and a federal ban, so the prosecutor’s reading would have made relief impossible in every single case.
Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy and Justices Patrick Fischer, Joseph Deters, Daniel Hawkins, and Megan Shanahan joined the opinion.
The ruling does not hand Heffley his gun back. The court sent the case to the Allen County Court of Common Pleas, where a trial judge will decide whether to grant his application based on the statutory factors, including whether he has led a law-abiding life since his release.
More from USA Carry:
Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented. She argued the federal ban applies independently of state law and should have to be removed first. She warned the decision “creates a galling disparity in the law,” noting that people convicted of certain misdemeanor domestic violence offenses remain permanently barred while some felony offenders can now seek relief.
The decision matters well beyond one man in Allen County. Ohio’s restoration statute exists so that people who have served their sentences and rebuilt law-abiding lives can recover a fundamental civil right. The trial court’s reading would have nullified that promise for every felony applicant in the state. The Supreme Court put it back.
I will keep tracking the case as it returns to the trial court, and watch whether the General Assembly responds to the issues the dissent raised.
