Judiciary Committee advances changes to expungement process, sentencing in weapons-under-disability cases

The Ohio House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday accepted a substitute to House Bill 5 that restores original sentencing ranges for some firearms offenses, increases penalties when a firearm is brandished or used in a crime, and replaces a mandatory court hearing for record sealing with a notice-and-application process for eligible people.

Proponents said the substitute balances public safety and second-chance pathways; opponents warned the change could limit law enforcement access to expunged records and reduce penalties for weapons-under-disability violations.

Representative Williams, who presented the substitute, said the bill restores “the original language as it relates to specifications for automatic firearms and suppressors” and increases the sentence for brandishing or using such a weapon in the commission of a crime to 10 years on first specified occasions and 15 on second specified occasions. Williams also told the committee the subbill replaces a mandatory five-year court hearing with a process in which the court sends notification to all parties, including the defendant, explaining how to apply to have a record sealed and providing an affidavit option for indigent filers.

Heinz von Ekersberger, testifying for the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, said the association supports pathways for people who have “turned their lives around” but objected to two main elements. First, he asked the committee to retain Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) retention of expunged conviction records for the limited purpose of enabling law-enforcement background checks for hiring. Second, von Ekersberger opposed language that reduces the degree of felony for several violations of Ohio’s weapons-under-disability statute, ORC 2923.13, from third-degree to fourth-degree felonies.

“We feel that reducing the degree of felony for 4 out of the 5 qualifying markers for a violation of Ohio’s weapons-under-disability law is counterproductive and sends the wrong message,” von Ekersberger said in opponent testimony. He added that law enforcement needs comprehensive criminal histories to make informed hiring decisions.

Representative Williams responded that the subbill team negotiated changes to comply with federal recognition of expungement for purposes of restoring firearm rights under federal law (as discussed during testimony with reference to federal requirements cited by the sponsor). Williams said the subbill delays eligibility for expungement from about one year currently to seven years as a trade-off to make expungements effective for restoring firearm purchasing rights in some federal contexts.

The committee accepted the substitute bill and later voted to favorably report House Bill 5 out of committee. The clerk recorded the following votes: Chair Thomas (yes), Vice Chair Matthews (yes), Ranking Member Isaacson (no), Representative Mohammed (no), Representative Odioso (yes), Representative Olslager (yes), Representative Plummer (yes), Representative Stewart (yes), Representative Swearingen (yes), Representative Synenberg (no), Representative Timbs (no), Representative Williams (yes). With sufficient votes, the bill was favorably reported and the committee kept the rule open until noon the same day.

Discussion in committee focused on the trade-offs between restoring Second Amendment rights via effective expungement and maintaining law-enforcement access to historical conviction information for hiring and public-safety decisions. Committee members and the witness agreed to continue negotiating language, particularly about felony classifications and BCI retention for background checks.

The committee record includes one piece of written-only testimony from Brandon Meyer of the Fairfield County Clerk of Courts and the OACP’s oral opposition. No final amendments or fiscal analyses resolving the disputed retention or felony-classification issues were reported at the hearing.