A program designed to help citizens in New Jersey expunge past criminal records is flawed. An applicant for a firearms identification card had to jump through hoops because the system is inefficient and broken.
A.F. received an expungement of his criminal record for acts he committed years ago. A.F.’s past was drug related and after staying clean, sober, and out of trouble for 13 years, he saw an opportunity to get his record expunged. Weathering a five-year process, A.F. did get his expungement but it did not end there. Being in possession of a “Clean Slate” expungement, A.F. applied for a firearms purchaser identification card and was denied.
The New Jersey Clean Slate expungement process has come under fire. The program was designed for certain offenders to be able to get an expungement if they kept out of trouble for a decade. In 2023 the New Jersey Office of Public Defender filed litigation against the State Police over excessive delays.
“The NJSP’s substantial delay in processing expungement orders deprives Plaintiffs, and the class of people they seek to represent, of their rights to have their criminal histories extracted, isolated, impounded, and sealed from employers, licensing boards, and others,” was stated in the complaint.
The alleged issue was a court would order an expungement and the state would take upwards of 18 months in some instances — or more — to have the criminal records removed from the State Bureau of Identification criminal history database.
The inefficiencies and delays injured parties of the suit. Individually, they were deprived of; a youth sports coaching opportunity, a high-paying job in the casino industry, the issuance of massage therapy license, a job with the U.S. Postal Service, a job as a teacher, and other injuries due to the unsealed records remaining open.
An unnamed plaintiff in the suit, F.F., specifically had issues with firearm-related deprivations. The complaint said that F.F. is “a forty-two-year-old business owner and community activist whose teenage criminal history prevents him from purchasing a firearm for defense of his home and business.”
The complaint states that even though F.F.’s expungement was granted seven months prior, he was denied a permit to carry a concealed firearm from his police department in Virginia. Upon showing the order, the department did issue his permit, however when he attempted to purchase a firearm some months later, he was denied via the NICS background check system.
A.F.’s story could have just as easily been listed among the plaintiffs in the Public Defender’s class action suit. A.F. admitted to using and abusing drugs going back to when he was a 14-year-old. He said his addiction battle lasted 15 years. Several spats with the law did leave him with a criminal history, however New Jersey’s Clean Slate program allowed him to get his record expunged.
A.F. was seeking employment in an industry that’s highly regulated. After he received his expungement, he applied for a state license to do security-related work. A.F. was granted the license required by the state and he said, “I must be good, you know? I went and put in for an FID and [it] came back denied.”
After discussing the matter with the permitting officer, A.F. said, she saw a simple assault on his record. “Whoa, whoa. My record was expunged,” he told the detective. “Well, I don’t know why I’m seeing this,” is how she replied. Because the denial was already processed, A.F. was forced to handle the matter through the appeals process for firearm permitting denials.
“Eventually, when they sent me discovery, I find out that when my expungement was signed off in 2023 that it was distributed to any and all departments, you know, municipalities, everybody involved was distributed [a copy],” A.F. explained. “It seems that the township that I had this simple assault situation in, [they] did not comply with the expungement and did not remove the records from a system called MCCS [Municipal Court Case Search database].”
The department that made the mistake did fix the clerical error, but it was too late to affect his application denial without going forward with the appeal.
A.F. said that his firearms purchaser identification card denial appeal was very “open and shut.” His attorney had no issues arguing his case and the court ordered that A.F. receive his permit. A mistake made by one municipality cost A.F. a lot of money. His initial quote for services was upwards of $5,000 in legal fees to ameliorate the permit denial.
The July 22, 2025 order stated:
[It is] ORDERED that the application for a Firearms Purchaser I.D. Card is GRANTED; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Chief of Police of the [redacted] Township Police Department shall issue Mr. [redacted] a firearms purchaser I.D. Card within twenty (20) days of the date of this order.
This ordeal did more than just deprive A.F. the ability to purchase firearms and cause him to pay a hefty lawyer’s fee. The situation made him worry about his employment status while everything was being figured out. Being someone who’s licensed by the state in a regulated industry, he was worried that the denial would somehow affect the validity of his license. Luckily, it did not. But, he admitted there were many sleepless nights because of the looming possibilities.
“Lots of stress, not only for me but my family [for] seeing it — and sleep lost!” A.F. said. He further explained that the circumstances compromised his reputation in the town he lives in. None of the information about his past should have come out during the background check process. This left him further injured with a sullied reputation in the town he resides.
On August 5, 2025, A.F. reported that he was emailed concerning his firearms purchaser identification card. The message informed him that the document was issued and that he could then download it from the online system.
The New Jersey Office of Public Defender entered into a settlement agreement with the State of New Jersey in March over the expungement delays. The New Jersey State Police agreed in the settlement — among other things — that they’ll process expungements within 120 days of an order.
A.F. would not have necessarily benefited from the settlement but it does highlight the broader issue with how expungements are handled and processed. This case shows a potential need for a uniform system on reporting criminal histories. A.F.’s expungement fell between the cracks and it was a costly endeavor because of human error.
The state has created a system where those who have attained reform from a past criminal life should get a chance to rejoin the People. A system that was designed to uplift people, but because of the alleged and apparent inefficiencies, can cause undue harm when folks are often most vulnerable.
Things worked out for A.F. But, how many people have upwards of $5,000 laying around to bail them out the next time there’s a human error? Is the 120-day agreement with the State Police going to help keep these kinds of issues from happening? Not likely considering A.F.’s problem was not time related.
According to A.F.’s story and even the lawsuit, the system seems flawed. State-level players perhaps should be taking a closer look at how this affects expungement recipients. This raises the question of if there’s going to be anyone to step up and litigate on recipients’ behalf if these kinds of events keep on occurring. This is an issue Bearing Arms will continue to monitor.
Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about the corrupt and broken systems depriving citizens of their Second Amendment rights.
Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
