Gun Rights and Wording Discrepancies

[Wit]

My question involves civil rights in the State of: Ohio

The background is that I got a DUI in 2001 in Ohio, as an Ohio resident. It was a misdemeanor pled down pretty well. To the point that it's not on my NICS record. Two years later I got a DUI in Indiana, which has reciprocal (?) laws, so I was charged with a felony class D. It's punishable by a max of 3 years, I served 88 days and 90 days probation.

Flash forward 7 years and I'm trying to purchase a rifle due to a pack of coyotes that has recently moved in to the neighborhood. They are rather aggressive and are taking down things as large as deer, so I'm trying to protect my dog.

Form 4473, question 12.c asks:

Have you been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more
than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? (See Important Notice 6, Exception 1.)

The Gun Control Act of 1968 states denial of ownership to:

1: Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
2: Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.

The Brady Bill further clamps down by denying ownership to anyone who:

1: Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

So that's three strikes against me... A three year punishable crime these are all working on 1 and 2 year time frames.

However here's the paragraph from the Ohio revised code 2923.13 Section A, paragraph 2:

(2) The person is under indictment for or has been convicted of any felony offense of violence or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony offense of violence.

So, according to the ORC I'm fine, but the former three state I'm not... In cases like this, what trumps what?

[jk]

It would appear that Ohio does not DQ you but if you must be able to be approved on the Federal form, then you do not qualify.

Did you miss this? It is right near the top of the form:

WARNING: You may not receive a firearm if prohibited by Federal or State Law. The information you provide will be used to determine
whether you are prohibited under law from receiving a firearm.
Prepare in original only. All entries must be in ink. Read the Important Notices, Instructions and Definitions on this form.

notice the OR in between the mention of Federal and State

[Wit]

I didn't miss it. I was actually going to wait until I had more responses and then ask why a federal law doesn't trickle down to conform state laws, but that was an adjunct question.

I know there are cases where laws can say things that are more or less strict than at another level, but never understood what supersedes what... The stricter law or the higher law. (Both avenues work against me regardless.)

I guess they cover all their bases by stating Federal and State.

[jk]

neither supersedes the other. Simply put, you must comply and be qualified by each of them.

[BOR]

I know there are cases where laws can say things that are more or less strict than at another level, but never understood what supersedes what... The stricter law or the higher law. (Both avenues work against me regardless.)

I guess they cover all their bases by stating Federal and State.

Federal law most generally pre-empts state laws, but if the feds say no guns, you are still violating the law by possession.

[Wit]

Sigh... Rats. So the best bet is to try to get an expungement, but from what I've read, that can't be done in Indiana since I went through court, jail, probation and almost a decade of life after.

This is exceptionally irritating because my attorney assured me we could file for expungement in Indiana. The caveat is that he said we "could file" but should know full well I'll be denied. (see my thread in the legal malpractice forum about that).