A bill that would increase certain gun penalties draws opposition from law enforcement
By: Abigail Semple
Posted on:
ATHENS, Ohio (WOUB) —A bill that would impose stiffer penalties for gun violence has nevertheless drawn stiff opposition from law enforcement.
Meanwhile, groups that would typically support the sealing of records are either opposed to the bill or on the fence because of the proposed increase in gun penalties.
The bill, HB 5, would impose longer sentences for certain gun-related offenses and would also create a new classification for repeat offenders and impose mandatory prison sentences.
It also requires courts to review records of people accused or convicted of certain gun crimes to find those who are eligible to have their records sealed and send them a letter informing them of this.
The bill recently passed the House and is now under review in the Senate.
According to some law enforcement officials, the bill, while well-intentioned, poses serious risks to public safety and the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Retired Dublin Police Chief Heinz von Eckartsberg, who represented the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, said in his testimony that “law enforcement agencies must and should have access to a police candidate’s complete criminal history.” He noted that doing otherwise severely hinders efforts to hire individuals of integrity.
Athens Police Chief Nick Magruder mirrored these sentiments and raised concerns about firearm eligibility for individuals with expunged records.
“Once the records are expunged, that opens up different possibilities for going back and being able to purchase, buy and transfer firearms,” he said. Magruder added that mental health crises, which often intersect with gun-related crime calls, is already stretching law enforcement thin.
Similarly, Vinton County Sheriff Ryan Kane expressed concern over the impact of HB 5. He described it as a “band-aid” and not a comprehensive solution. While he acknowledges that the bill attempts to tackle certain violent offenses, he noted that it lacks the depth and structure needed to handle certain issues such as mental health-related gun crimes. He indicated that while the bill might be useful in certain cases, if applied correctly, there is still more to be done.
“I believe it’ll be effective to some degree, but I still think there’s room for improvement,” he said.
However, others oppose the bill for very different reasons. The Ohio Legislative Black Caucus denounced HB 5 as a direct threat to meaningful criminal justice reform. In a news release, OLBC President Rep. Terrence Upchurch described the bill as a “serious setback” that “expands punitive measures and technical violations that will increase recidivism and disproportionately harm Black Ohioans.”
The OLBC argues that instead of addressing root causes of incarceration, HB 5 reinforces a “cycle of re-incarceration,” particularly for nonviolent offenders, by limiting alternatives to prison and reducing judicial discretion. “House Bill 5 doubles down on a broken system that punishes rather than rehabilitates,” Upchurch said. “It threatens to undo progress and further marginalizes Black Ohioans.” He called for the pursuit of policies rooted in equity and second chances, not “higher incarceration rates.”
Further, the Caucus emphasized the Black communities, already overrepresented in Ohio’s prison system, would suffer the most – but the consequences will spread across the entire state. The bill, they warn, will “strain taxpayer resources, destabilize families, and weaken public safety by focusing on punishment over prevention.”
While Upchurch has acknowledged the intent behind giving second chances to some gun offenders by sealing their records, he insists HB 5 in its current form lacks the necessary balance. “There’s no workforce training in the bill. There’s no job training. There is nothing to help an individual, who has been released from incarceration, there’s nothing in that bill to prevent them from going back into the system,” he said.
Civil rights advocates are “on the fence” about the bill and want to see a revision. Gary Daniels, legislative director of the Ohio ACLU, warned the bill could “dramatically increase the prison population.” According to Daniels, Ohio prisons, which are built to hold around 38,000 inmates, have remained over capacity for decades.
Daniels said the ACLU supports the bill’s new records sealing provisions but has concerns about whether the courts will be able to locate the eligible people to inform them of their right. An alternative would be to have these records automatically sealed, but Daniels noted this is not an option in Ohio because of a Supreme Court decision.
Meanwhile, some gun rights advocates support both the stiffer penalties and the records sealing provisions of the bill.
In fact, the Ohio Gun Owners group indicated in its testimony that its support for the records sealing is so strong it would oppose the bill if this was removed.
“These reforms provide a pathway to redemption for Ohioans who have served their time and are seeking to reenter society as productive citizens,” the group’s executive director, Chris Dorr, said. “We support these measures and regard them as vital components that prevent the over-penalization of otherwise non-violent individuals.”