Bradford, C.J.
Both federal and Indiana law provide that an individual who has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence may not possess a firearm. However, federal law further indicates that an individual’s federal rights may be restored if the individual’s rights are restored in the applicable jurisdiction, in this case, Indiana. The Indiana General Assembly has created an avenue by which such an individual may petition to have their right to possess a firearm restored. Dax Bunch alleges that he lost his right to possess a firearm after he pled guilty to and was convicted of Class B misdemeanor battery for acts committed against his then-wife. Bunch subsequently petitioned the trial court to have his right to possess a firearm restored. The trial court denied Bunch’s petition, finding that if Bunch’s gun privileges had been revoked, the revocation was not the result of Indiana Code section 35-47-4-7, but rather the result of federal law and, as such, Bunch must seek relief in the federal courts. Because we conclude otherwise, we reverse and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
…
Bunch contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request to restore his right to possess a firearm. In denying Bunch’s request for the court to reinstate his right to possess a firearm, the trial court found that Bunch’s “gun privileges if revoked were revoked as a result of Federal law” and, because it did not “have the authority or jurisdiction to Order Federal authorities to Restore [Bunch’s] gun privileges,” Bunch was required to “seek relief in the Federal Courts.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 26. Bunch argues that the trial court “misinterpreted the law when it held [that] it did not have the authority to restore Bunch’s firearm privileges pursuant to Indiana Code [section] 35-47-4-7.”
…
[T]o the extent that Bunch’s federal right to possess a firearm has been revoked, the revocation is tied to his Indiana conviction for a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” and lasts until he has had his civil rights restored in connection to that underlying Indiana conviction. See generally Fisher v. Kealoha, 855 F.3d 1067, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017) (indicating that the process for having a federal right to possess firearms restored following a conviction of a crime of domestic violence is tied to the state procedure for having said right restored and that the unavailability of a procedure for the restoration of one’s right to possess a firearm under state law does not remove the individual from the ambit of section 922(g)(9)’s prohibition).
Indiana Code section 35-47-4-7 provides that “a person who has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence may not possess a firearm.” However, the statute further states that
Not earlier than five (5) years after the date of conviction, a person who has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence may petition the court for restoration of the person’s right to possess a firearm. In determining whether to restore the person’s right to possess a firearm, the court shall consider the following factors:
(1) Whether the person has been subject to:
(A) a protective order;
(B) a no contact order;
(C) a workplace violence restraining order; or
(D) any other court order that prohibits the person from possessing a firearm.
(2) Whether the person has successfully completed a substance abuse program, if applicable.
(3) Whether the person has successfully completed a parenting class, if applicable.
(4) Whether the person still presents a threat to the victim of the crime.
(5) Whether there is any other reason why the person should not possess a firearm, including whether the person failed to satisfy a specified condition under subsection (c)[2] or whether the person has committed a subsequent offense.
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-7(b). The question before us on appeal is therefore whether Bunch’s right to possess a firearm was revoked pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-47-4-7. If so, the trial court had the authority to consider Bunch’s request.
…
Because we conclude that the proper venue for Bunch’s request was the trial court regardless of whether his federal or state right to possess a firearm (or both) was revoked and that Bunch’s conviction qualified as a crime of domestic violence, we further conclude that Indiana Code section 35-47-4-7 applied. Thus, to the extent that Bunch’s right to possess a firearm was revoked, Bunch appropriately relied on Indiana Code section 35-47-4-7(b) in his attempt to have his right to possess a firearm restored.
The State alternatively asserts on appeal that “[a]ssuming that the trial court … was the correct venue for hearing [Bunch’s] petition, the trial court’s denial of the petition was still the right result.” Appellee’s Br. p. 9. However, given that the trial court made no findings on whether restoration of Bunch’s right to possess a firearm was proper pursuant to the factors listed in Indiana Code section 35-47-4-7(b), we cannot merely agree with the State on this assertion. Rather, we must remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings, during which the trial court may consider the merits of Bunch’s petition.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Crone, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.