Stock photo of guns. (Photo by Aristide Economopoulos for New Jersey Monitor/States Newsroom.)
The Ohio Supreme Court is considering the case of an Allen County man named Patrick Heffley who says he should be able to purchase firearms again, despite several domestic violence convictions.
A lower court said no, he couldn’t, but Ohio’s Third District Court of Appeals disagreed. State prosecutors appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, insisting Heffley remains under weapons disability, and is thus barred from possessing firearms.
Federal statute generally prohibits a person with a misdemeanor or felony domestic violence conviction from having a gun. It provides, however, a handful of exceptions including the state restoration of the person’s civil rights. But under Ohio statute, restoration of civil rights hinges on an individual not being “otherwise prohibited by law” from having a firearm.
“Isn’t he caught between a rock and a hard place?” Justice Pat Fischer asked.
Assistant Allen County Prosecuting Attorney John Willamowksi readily acknowledged Heffley’s in a bind.
“It is effectively one statute saying (to) the state, you go first,” he said, “and the state statute saying federal disability, you be removed (first).”
Still, Willamowski argued state law is “plain and unambiguous.” Until Heffley’s federal weapons disability is gone, he can’t have his state civil rights restored. And until his state civil rights are restored, his federal weapons disability can’t be removed.
Background
Beginning in 2000, Heffley was convicted of a string of domestic violence offenses, including one fourth degree felony in 2006. Heffley served his sentence, paid his fines and court costs and made it through parole without incident. Since his release, Heffley told the trial court, his only contact with law enforcement was getting pulled over for a seatbelt violation.
Under federal law, a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction is enough to lose gun rights and so is a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Heffley was sentenced to 12 months for his felony, but the offense is punishable by up to 18 months behind bars.
In its arguments, the state leans on that felony conviction as the weapons disability keeping Heffley from getting a gun. In response, Heffley’s legal team points to a statement of legislative intent included as uncodified language in 2011’s House Bill 54.
The provision states, in no uncertain terms, that “The General Assembly is explicitly making this amendment to clarify that relief from a weapons disability (…) restores a person’s civil firearm rights to such an extent that the uniform federal ban on possessing any firearms at all (…) does not apply to that person.”
But the state dismissed that legislative language. The same section was subsequently amended — without the intent language — raising the question of whether the earlier, uncodified provision actually speaks to the current statute.
Oral arguments
More fundamentally, Heffley’s attorney Andrea Henning contends the state is misreading that “otherwise prohibited by law” provision in the underlying statute.
“Otherwise does not refer to the existence of the federal disability,” she told the justices. “It would refer to having a source other than what you’re seeking relief under.”
From Henning’s point of view, Heffley might be barred from relief if there was some other offense, but his state and federal weapons disability are fundamentally the same thing. Ohio’s courts can’t separate them for the purpose of legal analysis.
She said pitting the state and federal disabilities against one another, as the state suggests, would mean there’s Ohioans in Heffley’s shoes have little chance of ever restoring their gun rights.
“Despite,” Henning reminded them, “the legislature determining that they are worthy of an avenue to ask the court to consider granting this relief.”
Henning’s arguments resonated with some Republican members on the bench. Justices Pat Fischer and Pat DeWine pressed Willamowksi to explain away the uncodified section lawmakers approved in 2011.
“Do you think the result that you’re advocating today is what The General Assembly intended when they passed the statute?” DeWine asked. “I know the statute may say something different, but do you think that this is what they intended? That there is no way to get relief for this? That they’re in this Catch-22 circle?”
Even blunter, Fischer asked, “Why have an uncodified section? What was the point?”
Willamowski said it doesn’t really matter what lawmakers wanted — it matters what they wrote. If the General Assembly isn’t happy with the outcome, he said, they’ve got all the authority they need to change the law anytime they wish.
What’s more, Willamowski said, Heffley isn’t actually stuck in some Kafkaesque maze of contradictory laws. It might be a longshot, but he can seek a pardon or apply through the federal courts to rescind his weapons disability.
“You can apply to the United States Attorney General for relief from that federal firearms disability,” he said. “Whether individuals are regularly granted that or not, is something for the legislature to decide when they are crafting their statute here.”
And while Henning contends the state’s reading would set aside lawmakers’ stated intent, Willamowski argued the one Heffley and the appeals court favor, would create an even more “illogical” outcome.
Existing Ohio precedent holds state courts can’t remove a firearms disability that doesn’t stem from a state violation. Because federal law considers misdemeanor domestic violence grounds for weapons disability, while Ohio law does not, state courts can’t restore the gun rights of a person with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.
“If it is interpreted as the Third District (Appeals Court) is asking it to be, it would create an instance where it would almost incentivize individuals,” Willamowski said. “If you have a felony offense in that circumstance you could get your firearm rights back, where in the misdemeanor circumstance you couldn’t do so.”
