The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this week a man with a 20-year-old felony domestic violence conviction can ask lower courts to restore his right to own a gun. A Greater Cincinnati organization advocating for survivors says that leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
A court in Allen County convicted Patrick Heffley of felony domestic violence in 2006. Heffley also had previous misdemeanor domestic violence convictions in 2000 and 2003. As a result of the 2006 conviction, he lost his right to own a firearm.
Heffley served time, paid fines and completed parole without further incident. In 2023, he applied to have his right to own guns restored on the basis of an Ohio law allowing such post-conviction reinstatements under some conditions.
A trial court declined Heffley's request on the grounds a federal law prohibits those who serve more than a year in prison for domestic violence from owning a gun.
Heffley took his case to Ohio's Third District Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's decision. Allen County prosecutors appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
On June 2, the high court ruled that the original trial court must take up Heffley's case again, saying the federal law doesn't preclude the state from lifting its bar on his right to own a gun.
"Under federal law, relieving Heffley from his Ohio firearms disability will also relieve him from his federal firearms disability stemming from the same conviction," Ohio Supreme Court Justice Pat DeWine wrote in the court's 6-1 majority decision. "The question we confront is whether a trial court may grant an application for relief from a state firearms disability when an Ohio conviction creates both the state and federal disabilities. On a fair reading of (state law), we conclude that the answer is yes."
Questions for domestic violence survivors
Some who advocate for survivors of domestic violence say it's unclear what basis trial courts can use to determine whether it's safe for those convicted of domestic violence to own guns after they've served their time.
Kristin Shrimplin is executive director of Women Helping Women, a Greater Cincinnati group advocating for domestic violence survivors. She says the ruling means state courts need clearer criteria for weighing such questions.
"I think it would have to be a very focused audit, case-by-case, to equip judges with a tool that's quantifiably looking at risk," she says. "What are the levels of risk to a survivor, their families or their community?"
Some of those criteria could include the nature of the original offense(s), whether a person applying for firearm access has had other complaints for violent behavior since their conviction, how much risk the survivor might be in, and other considerations.
Shrimplin says that tool doesn't exist right now.
"What are the protocols? What is the discernment in being able to have a firearm again? I don't think that's been answered yet," she says.
The question is important, Shrimplin says, because of the extra level of danger firearms bring to domestic violence. She cites research suggesting the presence of a firearm in a domestic abuse situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%. Shrimplin also points out that Ohio saw a 37% increase in domestic violence homicides last year.
"This isn't a 2nd Amendment rights issue; it's not a constitutional issue," she says. "This is really about a safety infrastructure and doing the due diligence for that. The ruling just came out, so right now I don't think any of us have answers for that... I just think in this climate we really have to think through any decisions made that impact safety. We're going to want to take our time to understand it clearly."
Women Helping Women operates a 24/7 helpline for people experiencing domestic violence at 513-381-5610.
Read more: