I sure do.
Title 18 USC 921
(ii) A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.
See: State v. Hendren
(2005), 9th Dist. No. 22464, 2005-Ohio-2814, http://statecasefiles.justia.com/docume ... o-2814.pdf
. In that case, Mr. Hendren was convicted of 7 counts of violations of R.C. § 2923.13. The appeals court made the following ruling:
“In his argument in support of his assignment of error, Mr. Hendren argues only that his prior conviction was placed under seal by a court, and therefore essentially could not be used against him to convict him of the instant charge. Mr. Hendren invokes R.C. 2953.33, which governs the sealing of records. However, Mr. Hendren does not present any authority that provides that sealing of records under R.C. 2953.33 also applies to relieve a defendant of a disability imposed pursuant to R.C. 2923.13. See, e.g., State v. Conwell (Apr. 12, 2000), 9th Dist. No. 19482, at *17, fn. 3.***Thus, a defendant seeking to be relieved of a disability must do so pursuant to the procedure set forth in R.C. 2923.14. This statute section provides that a defendant seeking to remove a disability is to apply to the court of common pleas in the county in which the defendant resides. R.C. 2923.14(A).*** Mr. Hendren has failed to demonstrate that he followed this procedure.*** The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.” See also http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Ohio ... fa0656.pdf
(See last paragraph of the second page).
According to the 9th District and the Attorney General of Ohio, Ohio's records sealing statute does not overcome the prohibitions of R.C. § 2923.13, and therefore, the state restoration via records sealing "expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms," thus invoking the federal prohibitions.
This may not matter for the original poster because he said that the DV charge was reduced to a misdemeanor. However, if Sub HB 203 becomes law, even misdemeanor DV convictions would create a state and federal firearms disability. See line 1691-1693 of Sub HB 203 and 18 USC § 922(g)(9).
My comment should not be considered legal advice; it is general discussion of Ohio law. Anyone in these circumstances should consult with an attorney.