On June 2 of this year, the Republican-controlled Ohio Supreme Court opened the door for a defendant convicted of domestic violence to have his gun rights restored. In 2006, Allen County resident Patrick Heffley was convicted of domestic violence — a fourth-degree felony. While some domestic violence cases are charged as misdemeanors, Heffley’s case was charged as a felony because of prior convictions in 2000 and 2004, according to newspaper accounts. While unaware of the details of the events in Heffley’s case, the charges against him were sufficiently serious for a judge to impose jail time.
As a result of his conviction, Heffley served his prison term, paid his fine and court costs, and was successfully discharged from post release control — which was previously known as parole. While Heffley was incarcerated, he lost his right to vote, to hold office and serve on a jury. But those rights were restored once he completed the terms of his sentence. However, his right to carry a firearm was not restored. Due to his conviction of a felony offense of violence, he was prohibited from owning a firearm pursuant to state and federal laws.
Seventeen years after his conviction, in 2023, Heffley filed an application for relief from his Ohio firearms disability, asking the court to restore his right to possess a firearm. Heffley relied on a section of the Ohio statute that allows for the restoration of gun rights if the person meets the requirements of the statute, including having led a law-abiding life since discharge or release, and appears likely to continue to do so. The law further provides that the trial judge has discretionary authority to grant relief from the disability. In Heffley’s case, the trial court denied his application.
One requirement for a successful restoration of gun rights is that the applicant is not otherwise prohibited by law from acquiring, having or using a firearm. Federal law prohibits anyone who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year from having any firearm or ammunition. So apparently the trial judge denied his application because of the federal ban.
Heffley appealed to Ohio’s Third District Court of Appeals which ruled that he was not barred from possessing a firearm, finding essentially that he was in a catch-22 between the state and federal law and therefore should have his rights restored. The Court of Appeals agreed. The Republican majority on the Ohio Supreme Court also agreed. The sole Democrat on the court, Justice Jennifer Brunner dissented.
Over the last several decades, state and federal legislatures have been enacted laws that make it unlawful for people convicted of certain crimes of violence, including domestic violence, to lawfully obtain a firearm. In my book that makes a lot of sense.
But obviously the Republican members of the Ohio Supreme Court don’t see it that way. They would rather slither through a loophole in the law and expand gun rights to all, no matter what their history of violence.
As Justice Brunner says in her dissent, the majority opinion strains reason. “Opinions like this one harm the rule of law. Distilled to its essence, the rule of law calls on the judiciary to apply laws fairly and follow established rules in rendering decisions. But the majority opinion does not do that here. Instead, it undermines the public trust, creates a result that is more likely to cause continued harm to victims, and sets the stage for more serious repeat crimes to occur.”
In a society where gun violence is exploding, and where news accounts are filled with accounts of victim of gun violence, limiting the ability of those who have demonstrated a propensity to violent crimes makes sense.
In its most recent report released in October, the Ohio Domestic Violence Network documented a 38% increase in fatalities involving intimate partners, and 84% of the fatalities involved firearms.
One online blogger opined that Heffley had kept his nose clean for almost two decades, and questions why he should continue to be punished for his prior sins.
Actions have consequences. Victims of domestic violence still carry the internal and external wounds that they suffered. The inability to possess a firearm is a consequence of the act performed by the offender. Shouldn’t he or she continue to suffer the consequences of their acts for the sake of possible future victims?
Heffley’s case is not over. The final ruling of the Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether to grant or deny Heffley’s application for relief from his firearms disability.
I suspect that the NRA and other gun rights advocates will be watching this case carefully and probably offering legal and financial support for his cause.
This November Justice Jennifer Brunner will be on the ballot seeking re-election to her seat on Ohio’s Supreme Court. She is the only Democrat elected statewide in Ohio. If you agree with her dissent, that defendants convicted of domestic violence should be prevented from legally obtaining a weapon, remember her in November.
C. Ellen Connally is a retired judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court. From 2010 to 2014 she served as the President of the Cuyahoga County Council. An avid reader and student of American history, she is a former member of the Board of the Ohio History Connection, and past president of the Cleveland Civil War Round Table, and is currently vice president of the Cuyahoga County Soldiers and Sailors Monument Commission. She holds degrees from BGSU, CSU and is all but dissertation for a PhD from the University of Akron.