Not Over Yet - Sheriff Denies OFCC Member His CHL

• 
• 

Published on Wednesday, 17 May 2006 00:00

Written by Daniel White

Despite indications to the contrary, OFCC member Mike Daniels has been denied a concealed handgun license for the second time, this time in Lorain County.

As we reported last month, OFCC has been helping Mike Daniels after his CHL application was denied in Medina county based upon a 25-year-old expunged conviction for possessing six prescription pills which were not his.

With OFCC's help, Mike went before a Lorain County judge and was granted relief from disability (in addition to the expungement he was already granted in Cuyahoga County), supposedly restoring all of his rights. However, officials in the county disagree with this assessment.

A misunderstanding on the phone caused Mike to believe his case was over and his license would be granted. However, instead of receiving notice to come pick up his license, he received a letter from Lorain County Sheriff Phil Stammitti citing his denial.

Stammitti, a member of the NRA, says his hands are tied under current Ohio law. After conferring with Lorain County Prosecutor Dennis Will (who has not yet returned calls about this matter), he has determined that relief only applies to the possession and carrying of firearms, not to the issuance of a CHL.

In other words, Mike can carry a firearm openly, but cannot obtain a license to carry it concealed in Ohio (he does have licenses from two other states that disagree with this assessment).

The Ohio CHL law requires expunged records to be reviewed during the investigation process for applying for a CHL. The "relief from disability" law states:

§ 2923.14. Relief from disability.

(A) Any person who, solely by reason of the person's disability under division (A) (2) or (3) of section 2923.13 of the Revised Code, is prohibited from acquiring, having, carrying, or using firearms, may apply to the court of common pleas in the county in which the person resides for relief from such prohibition.

(B) The application shall recite the following:

(1) All indictments, convictions, or adjudications upon which the applicant's disability is based, the sentence imposed and served, and any release granted under a community control sanction, post-release control sanction, or parole, any partial or conditional pardon granted, or other disposition of each case;

(2) Facts showing the applicant to be a fit subject for relief under this section.

(C) A copy of the application shall be served on the county prosecutor. The county prosecutor shall cause the matter to be investigated and shall raise before the court any objections to granting relief that the investigation reveals.

(D) Upon hearing, the court may grant the applicant relief pursuant to this section, if all of the following apply:

(1) The applicant has been fully discharged from imprisonment, community control, post-release control, and parole, or, if the applicant is under indictment, has been released on bail or recognizance.

(2) The applicant has led a law-abiding life since discharge or release, and appears likely to continue to do so.

(3) The applicant is not otherwise prohibited by law from acquiring, having, or using firearms.

(E) Costs of the proceeding shall be charged as in other civil cases, and taxed to the applicant.

(F) Relief from disability granted pursuant to this section:

(1) Applies only with respect to indictments, convictions, or adjudications recited in the application;

(2) Applies only with respect to firearms lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used by the applicant;

(3) Does not apply with respect to dangerous ordnance;

(4) May be revoked by the court at any time for good cause shown and upon notice to the applicant;

(5) Is automatically void upon commission by the applicant of any offense set forth in division (A) (2) or (3) of section 2923.13 of the Revised Code, or upon the applicant's becoming one of the class of persons named in division (A) (1), (4), or (5) of that section.

(G) As used in this section:

(1) "Community control sanction" has the same meaning as in section 2929.01 of the Revised Code.

(2) "Post-release control" and "post-release control sanction" have the same meanings as in section 2967.01 of the Revised Code.

The Relief law doesn't address CHLs specifically, so Stammitti believes he cannot legally issue a license to Daniels.

It is OFCC's position that "Applies only with respect to firearms lawfully acquired, possessed, carried, or used by the applicant" means that it applies to ALL methods of acquiring, possessing, carrying, or using a firearm. The Ohio DNR would not deny Daniels a hunting license on the grounds that he can "use" a firearm for target practice, but not for hunting (since hunting isn't specifically addressed in the ORC), so Daniels shouldn't have a distinction forced on him for method of carrying.

As I write this, sub. HB347 is being considered in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee. If passed unchanged, it would make this case moot as it specifically states that sealed or expunged records are to be disregarded as reasons for denial, as they were intended to be in the expungement process. The failure to specifically address this issue in the Relief code was a legislative oversight, and they are trying to correct it.

If this reform bill does not pass with this code intact, we need to correct the oversight in the courts. OFCC will continue to closely monitor the case and report on updates as they become available.

• < Prev
• Next >