Category: Policy

New report: Most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult

Most states restrict firearm rights too broadly and make restoration difficult, in potential violation of the Second Amendment, according to new report

 

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 5, 2025

Media Contact: Margaret Love

Margaretlove@pardonlaw.com

Loss of firearm rights after a felony conviction extends well beyond what is necessary to advance public safety objectives, according to a study released today by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center. The loss of rights is permanent in most states, and under federal law.

The study shows that each state operates under its own complex legal framework with overlapping federal requirements that create the possibility of further criminal jeopardy for inadvertent violations.  Only 13 states limit dispossession to violent crimes, and more than two-thirds of the states offer no route to firearm relief to residents convicted in another state or in federal court. Only 16 states provide a way to regain lost rights that is easily accessible to all state residents.

CCRC’s report, Restoration of Firearm Rights After Conviction: A National Survey and Suggestions for Reform, offers a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the differing ways states restrict and restore the right to possess a firearm, including relevant sections of statutory text to facilitate analysis and comparison.  This detailed information on state laws has not been made previously available, and is timely in light of impending changes to federal firearm restoration.

In almost every state, the process for regaining firearm rights is complex and difficult to navigate. Restoration of federal rights currently depends on restoration under state law, which means that restoration is effectively unavailable to many people, notably including those convicted in federal court whose only remedy is a presidential pardon. It also means that federal firearms restrictions are unevenly applied across the country.

Broad categorical dispossession laws like those in most states are more vulnerable to constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment when there is no individualized assessment of public safety risk, according to Margaret Love, one of the co-authors of the report. “There is no empirical research that would support restricting firearm rights for those convicted of non-violent offenses.”

Love said that “A close look at how firearm rights are restored in states across the country is important because of prospective changes to federal restoration procedures announced in March by the Department of Justice.” She pointed out that “The revival of an alternate way of avoiding federal restrictions means that federal rights will no longer depend on how states restore rights. At the same time, it will leave applicable state restrictions in place, and challenge states to consider whether any analogous state restrictions should remain after federal rights have been restored.”   

The change in federal firearm restoration procedures under consideration by the Department of Justice should encourage states to look carefully at restoration provisions in their own laws to determine whether more restrictive state provisions should outlive federal ones. States will also have to consider whether to offer opportunities for restoration of rights to all state residents rather than restricting them to people convicted in their own state courts.

Beth Johnson, the other co-author of the report, said that facilitating relief from felony dispossession has not been a focus of organizations seeking to remove criminal record restrictions on basic needs such as housing, employment, and access to social supports. It has also not been a familiar part of the advocacy program of organizations dedicated to challenging other types of restrictions on firearm possession.

“Gun violence has been too volatile an issue on the national scene to make support for restoring firearm rights to ‘convicted felons’ anything but a political third rail,” Johnson said. “Lost in the debate is what should be common ground: treating people fairly and supporting their reintegration includes restoring, with appropriate safeguards, their full access to housing, jobs, credit, and yes, also firearm rights.”

The report recommends that the federal government should make relief from federal felony dispossession under the proposed new restoration program broadly available to those who present no public safety risk.  It also recommends that states should narrow the scope of their felony dispossession laws, and provide a procedure for regaining firearm rights that incorporates a public safety determination and is easily accessible to all residents.

Both of the report’s authors have each spent decades representing people seeking to regain their firearm rights, Love in the Federal system through the presidential pardon process, and Johnson in the State of Illinois through the various relief mechanisms that state provides. “We are convinced that the time is right for a serious and open-minded effort to reform the law applicable to a collateral consequence of conviction that is in many ways unreasonable and unfair,” they said. “We are optimistic that the proposed changes to federal restoration will encourage states to reform their unduly restrictive laws.”

###

ABOUT CCRC

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center is a non-profit organization that researches laws and policies relating to restoration of rights and criminal record relief throughout the country, whose work makes it possible to see national patterns and emerging trends in efforts to mitigate the adverse impact of a criminal record. For more information visit https://ccresourcecenter.org/.  

 

Study: Texas diversion provides dramatic benefits for people facing their first felony

NOTE: In light of renewed interest in state legislatures in judicially-administered diversion and deferred adjudication programs, we are re-publishing our 2021 report on a remarkable study of deferred adjudication in Texas by researchers Michael Mueller-Smith and Kevin Schnepel. We noted at the time that “The deferred adjudication program in Texas represents the largest diversion program in the U.S. with over 200,000 participants during 2017 (the most recent year with state-wide caseload data available). Based on the findings of Mueller-Smith and Schnepel, this program may serve as a good model for other jurisdictions considering an expansion of diversion options, especially for people possibly facing their first felony conviction.

by Margaret Love and David Schlussel (Feb 23, 2021).

Increased use of diversion is a key feature of America’s new age of criminal justice reform. Whether administered informally by prosecutors or under the auspices of courts, diversionary dispositions aim to resolve cases without a conviction—and in so doing, conserve scarce legal resources, provide supportive services, reduce recidivism, and provide defendants with a chance to avoid the lingering stigma of a conviction record.

Despite the growing popularity of diversion in this country and around the world, there has been little empirical study of its impacts on future behavior. Until now.

By conjecture, the opportunity to steer clear of a criminal conviction might affect future behavior in opposing ways. An optimist might expect that diversion would motivate a person to avoid returning to court in the future, while preserving the ability to hold lawful employment, especially in places where criminal background checks are used to screen applicants. A skeptic might argue that diversion represents a lesser punishment that could increase offending by reducing either a specific or general deterrence effect.

Without research showing the likelihood of one or the other outcome, policymakers, prosecutors, and judges have had to operate on untested assumptions, hoping for the best. This vacuum has now been filled by a new study of Texas’ court-managed diversion program by two economists, which should be welcome news for the optimists.

Michael Mueller-Smith and Kevin Schnepel (2020) use detailed administrative data from Harris County (which covers the Houston area) to estimate the first causal impacts of a diversion program available to a large fraction of felony defendants in the state. Texas’ “deferred adjudication community supervision” allows defendants to plead guilty but have entry of a conviction deferred during a period of community supervision, with the case dismissed without a conviction upon successful completion. The arrangement must be approved by the judge. This diversion program is comparable to numerous programs administered by prosecutors and judges across the U.S., Europe, and several other countries—although many programs do not necessarily require a guilty plea. At the same time, Texas law has broad eligibility for its program compared to many otherwise-comparable American programs, making deferred adjudication potentially available to all defendants except those charged with DUI-related offenses, repeat drug trafficking near a school, a range of repeat sex crimes, and murder.

Read more

SBA finalizes rule limiting consideration of criminal history in loan programs

Today, the Small Business Administration’s rule removing most criminal history restrictions in its federally guaranteed loan programs will be published in final form. This marks an important step in opening additional sources of business capital to justice-impacted entrepreneurs, and a boon to developing communities that thrive on the success of their small businesses.

The final rule makes few changes from the version published last fall for comment, which proposed removing most criminal history restrictions from the SBA’s business and disaster loan programs. The proposed rule is described in this post. The only substantive difference in the final rule is that business owners under indictment, along with those actually incarcerated, will remain ineligible for federally guaranteed loans.

The SBA noted that of the 19 comments received on the proposed rule, almost all were favorable. It also pointed out, as it did last fall, that there is no data indicating an enhanced risk of default from this population of entrepreneurs. At the same time, the SBA comments that even though it will no longer be conducting extensive criminal records checks on loan applicants, lenders may continue to do so.

In describing the background of the now-final rule, the SBA cites some eye-catching statistics iindicating that in recent years it has been giving lenders the green light on hundreds of loan applications from business owners with a felony record, while disapproving only a handful. These statistics, which are consistent with the SBA’s responses to FOIA requests with which CCRC is familiar, would seem to indicate that the SBA has available to it data that could shed light on actual risk through default rates.  We look forward to learning more about this data, which could give banks additional incentives to make loans to hustice-impacted entrepreneurs.

We have recently attended several programs sponsored by the Treasury Department and its agencies in which the issues raised by “fair chance lending” have been explored, and we expect to be continuing that conversation in weeks to come.

 

SBA takes one step toward fair chance lending, but needs to take another

The U.S. Small Bujsiness Administration has taken several recent steps that promise to make federally guaranteed loans available to business owners with a criminal history. This is an important policy issue we’ve been following for several years, and it appears there may at last be a breakthrough. How big a breakthrough remains to be seen.

Following up on its omission of “character” and “reputation” as criteria for 7(a) loans, discussed in this post, the U.S. Small Business Administration issued new Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for its 7(a) small business loan program. Effective August 1, 2023, the new SOP omits all mention of “good character” as a requirement for loan qualification. This means that applicants with a criminal history who apply to a bank for a federally guaranteed loan will no longer be put through the SBA’s onerous “character determination” process. (Applicants on parole or probation, or in prison, remain ineligible to apply under 13 CFR 120.110(n).)

At the same time, the issue of prior criminal history appears to remain relevant in deciding whether to make a loan, since applicants for 7(a) loans (including Community Advantage loans) must still complete Form 912, which contains very broad questions asking about an applicant’s criminal history. Questions 7 and 8 on this form ask about pending charges and recent arrests, while Question 9 asks whether the applicant has engaged in any criminal conduct at any time in which there was a disposition:

 Q. 9:  For any criminal offense – other than a minor vehicle violation – have you ever: 1) been convicted; 2) pleaded guilty; 3) pleaded nolo contendere; 4) been placed on pretrial diversion; or 5) been placed on any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment)?

Applicants responding affirmatively to any of these questions are instructed to “include dates, location, fines, sentences, misdemeanor or felony, dates of parole/probation, unpaid fines or penalties, name(s) under which charged, and any other pertinent information. . . .”

When asked to supply detailed information about such a broad range of criminal matters, no matter how minor or dated, loan applicants may reasonably assume that those matters will be considered – either by the SBA or by the bank that will actually be making the loan — and may be grounds for declination. The only difference now is that it isn’t clear HOW those matters will be considered or by whom, since the new SOP omits the “character determination” process in earlier editions of the SOP.  And those in need of business capital will likely still be deterred from applying.

We think it fair to assume that, despite the SBA’s amendment of the regulation to omit “character” as a loan criterion, and its amendment of the SOP to omit the “character determination” process, any “criminal offense” reported by an applicant (including misdemeanor convictions and diversions, and unpaid fines or financial penalties) may still be considered in deciding whether to make a loan. Even if the SBA itself doesn’t intend to consider an applicant’s criminal history, the agency continues to helpfully collect the information so that the lending bank can consider it.

As we noted in a post last spring, “the good news is that it appears the SBA will no longer bar banks from making loans to otherwise qualified applicants based on their criminal history. The less good news is that the agency seems to expect banks and other lending institutions to step into the void and apply their own restrictions on loans based on an applicant’s criminal history.” Indeed, one can imagine that a bank that otherwise does NOT feel it necessary to inquire into or consider an applicant’s criminal record in its other lending practices, will now feel some obligation to do so because 1) it no longer has the SBA to act as a screen, and 2) the SBA may expect it to use the information it has collected.

In short, we are not at all sure how much progress has been made by removing the loan criterion “character” from the regulations, and the character determination process from the SOP, as long as the broad inquiries about criminal history remain as part of the application process.

What we really need, therefore, is for the SBA to take another step to limit the criminal matters that will serve as the basis for declining a loan, by simply not asking about them.  We believe this next step is most likely the “proposed rule” that is the subject of a letter sent to the SBA Administrator on May 16 by the chairs and ranking members of the small business committees in the House and Senate, asking for a “pause” in issuing the rule. Of course, we are interested in knowing whether the new proposed rule does in fact place limits on inquiry about criminal matters and, if it does, what the reasons are for the requested pause.

We are also interested in knowing whether the SBA will simply pass the buck to the lending banks who either already have or who will soon develop their own policies on criminal background checks if the SBA will no longer serve as a screen.

The same issues about criminal record restrictions are raised by the 8(a) program administered by the SBA, which unlike 7(a) includes rules on a broad range of criminal matters, but which like 7(a) uses Form 912.  We expect we will have a chance to discuss these restrictions before long in the context of the 8(a) program.

Pending federal reforms promise support for justice-affected entrepreneurs

Word is getting around about pending reforms that would make federal support for small businesses more widely available to entrepreneurs with a criminal history. Notably, the U.S. Small Business Administration has recently taken steps to reduce or remove entirely criminal record-related restrictions in its loan and contracting programs.  These are steps that CCRC has been urging ever since the SBA’s restrictive policies first came to public attention during the pandemic.

An article by Michael Friedrich published today by Arnold Ventures (AV) describes a number of reforms recently proposed or adopted by the SBA that will eliminate arbitrary program barriers based on criminal history that are unrelated to any established risk. These reforms should encourage more justice-affected business owners to seek SBA support for their entrepreneurial ventures in the form of federally guaranteed loans or federal contract set-asides for “socially and economically disadvantaged” businesses.

The AV article points out that the near-exclusion from these programs based on criminal history “frustrate[s] federal efforts to contribute to economic development in disadvantaged communities, often the same low-income communities of color that have suffered the most during the era of mass incarceration and tough-on-crime policies.”    

Read more

SBA proposes to ease criminal history restrictions in loan programs

On October 23, 2022, the U.S. Small Business Administration published for comment a rule that would significantly expand the availability of federally guaranteed loans to entrepreneurs with a criminal history. This rule, if finalized, could also transform the SBA’s role in support of urban community development.

The proposed rule, titled ”Affiliation and Lending Criteria for the SBA Business Loan Programs,” 87 FR 64724 (Oct. 23, 2022), eliminates language in the SBA’s formal lending criteria that the agency has relied on for many years to restrict loans to justice-affected business owners.

We have written at length over the past several years about the broad record-based restrictions in the SBA’s lending and contracting programs, restrictions that first became controversial during the pandemic, and that have never been justified by evidence of a link between criminal history and credit risk.

While the proposed SBA rule covers a variety of subjects, its key provision from CCRC’s perspective is its omission of the words “character” and “reputation” from the criteria for small business loans in 13 CFR 120.150(a). It is this language that has been relied on for the “good character” policies in the SBA’s operating procedures affecting both business loans and disaster assistance. In turn, these procedures define “good character” exclusively in terms of a person’s criminal history.

Read more

The Frontiers of Dignity: Clean Slate and Other Criminal Record Reforms in 2022

At the beginning of each year since 2017, CCRC has issued a report on legislative enactments in the year just ended, new laws aimed at reducing the barriers faced by people with a criminal record in the workplace, at the ballot box, and in many other areas of daily life.  These annual reports document the steady progress of what our report two years ago characterized as “a full-fledged law reform movement” aimed at restoring rights and dignity to individuals who have successfully navigated the criminal law system.

In the three years between 2019 and 2021, more than 400 new criminal record reforms were enacted.  Many states enacted new laws every year, and all but two states enacted at least one significant new law during this period.

The modern record reform movement reflected in our annual reports is bipartisan, grounded in and inspired by the circumstance that almost a third of adults in the United States now have a criminal record, entangling them in a web of legal restrictions and discrimination that permanently excludes then from full participation in the community. It reflects a public recognition that the “internal exile” of such a significant portion of society is not only unsafe and unfair, but it is also profoundly inefficient.

We are pleased to present our report on new laws enacted in 2022, titled The Frontiers of Dignity: Clean Slate and Other Criminal Record Reforms in 2022. While this report shows that the legislative momentum gathering since 2018 slowed somewhat in the past year, there has still been progress, with more new laws enacted this year than in 2018 when the current reform movement took off in earnest.

The title of this report is borrowed from the Basic Law adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany after World War II, which declared that “Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of state authority.” Most European countries incorporate this foundational premise, as well as a concern for individual privacy, into their treatment of criminal records, by making them largely unavailable to the public and by limiting how they are used to deny rights and opportunities.

In part because American legal systems are not similarly grounded in respect for dignity and privacy, our progress toward a fair and efficient criminal records policy has been slow and uneven. Yet it has been steady, animated in recent years both by a concern for racial justice and by economic self-interest. This report, like our past annual reports, attempts to capture this steady progress toward recognizing the worth and dignity of the millions of Americans whose past includes a record of arrest or conviction. Read more

Applying for federal disaster assistance with a criminal record

In addition to its lending and other programs in support of small businesses, the U.S. Small Business Administration provides long-term low-interest loans under Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act directly to individuals, businesses, and nonprofits in declared disaster areas. The current devastation wrought by Hurricane Ian in Florida — the subject of a dedicated new page on the SBA’s website — reminded us of some research we published two years ago, at the height of the pandemic, about how people with a criminal record were faring under the SBA’s COVID-related disaster relief program.  The answer initially was “not well.”

Our research indicates that neither FEMA (emergency aid) nor the USDA (farm loans) impose criminal record restrictions on disaster assistance.  But the SBA does.  What’s more, the SBA’s restrictions are not formalized in a regulation but buried in operating procedures.

The criminal history restrictions on SBA economic injury disaster loans (EIDL) under the CARES Act were initially even more restrictive than those that applied to its PPP relief, and they too were never formalized in a rule. The PPP restrictions were rolled back in response to public outcry and lawsuits, and the following year the COVID-related EIDL policy was also rolled back to disqualify the same limited population as the PPP itself (people in prison or on probation or parole, with pending felony charges, or with recent financial fraud and related convictions).  However, criminal record restrictions in the SBA’s general non-COVID lending programs, including its general disaster assistance programs, were not affected.

Now that the SBA’s disaster assistance programs are no longer administered under the exceptional and well-publicized approach of the pandemic-related authorities, we thought it would be timely to take another look at how those programs — presumably including the one that specifically applies to Hurricane Ian relief — are available to people with a criminal record.    

Read more

A closer look at racial disparities in California’s automatic record clearing

Numerous studies have demonstrated how Black Americans are treated more harshly at every stage of the criminal legal system—from over-policing to overcharging to more punitive sentencing. New research from California shows how eligibility limitations on criminal record relief perpetuate racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and have a disproportionately adverse effect on Black Americans.

The study, by Alyssa Mooney, Alissa Skog, and Amy Lerman, and published in Law & Society Review, examined recent legislative changes to criminal record relief laws in California, one of the first states to automate relief. The study assessed the equity of California’s existing automatic record relief laws by examining the share of people with criminal records who are presently eligible for automatic record clearing, and variations across racial and ethnic groups.

Read more

“The High Cost of a Fresh Start”

The High Cost of a Fresh Start: New Report Examines Court Debt as a Barrier to Clearing a Conviction Record

Download the report: https://ccresourcecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Report-High-Cost-of-Fresh-Start.pdf

BOSTON – A new report from the National Consumer Law Center and the Collateral Consequences Resource Center explores the extent to which court debt—such as criminal fines, fees, costs, and restitution—is a barrier to record clearing that prevents poor and low-income people from getting a second chance. For the nearly one-third of adults in the U.S. with a record of arrest or conviction, their record is not simply part of their past but a continuing condition that impacts nearly every aspect of their life. Their record makes it hard to get a job and support a family, secure a place to live, contribute to the community, and participate fully in civic affairs.

“Criminal record clearing must not be reserved only for those who can easily pay for it,” said Margaret Love, executive director of CCRC. “States should ensure people are not being priced out of a chance at a fresh start.”

The High Cost of a Fresh Start: A State-by-State Analysis of Court Debt as a Bar to Record Clearing analyzes whether outstanding court debt bars record clearing under the laws of each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system. The report finds that in almost every jurisdiction, outstanding court debt is a barrier to record clearing, either rendering a person entirely ineligible or making it more difficult for them to qualify.

In recent years, most states have passed laws aimed at restoring economic opportunity, personal freedoms, and human dignity to millions of people by providing a path to clear their record. But for too many, this relief remains out of reach because of monetary barriers, including not only the cost of applying for record clearing but also requirements in many jurisdictions that applicants pay off debt incurred as part of the underlying criminal case before they can have their record cleared. This debt can include fees imposed for every month someone spends on probation or on GPS monitoring, and for their representation by a public defender—a fee that is levied only on people whom the court has deemed too poor to pay for their own defense. Interest and payment penalties can add to this court debt over time.

“The total amount of court debt can run to thousands of dollars for even minor infractions, which presents a high bar to clear,” said Ariel Nelson, staff attorney at NCLC. “Perversely, because a record makes it much harder to get a job, having an open record makes it harder to pay off court debt and therefore harder to qualify for record clearing.”

This burden falls especially heavily on Black and Brown communities, which are more likely to have high concentrations of both criminal records and poverty because of long-standing structural racism in criminal law enforcement and in the economy.

Based on their research, the authors offer the following recommendations:

  • Court debt should never be a barrier to record clearing.Qualification for record clearing should not be conditioned on payment of court debt, and outstanding court debt should not be a basis for denying relief, regardless of whether record clearing is petition-based or automatic.
  • Costs to apply for record clearing, including filing fees, should never be a barrier to record clearing. States should adopt automatic record-clearing processes that do not require individuals to incur costs to have their records cleared.
  • Jurisdictions should collect and report data on monetary barriers to record clearing.Jurisdictions where record clearing may be denied on the basis of outstanding court debt should collect and report data reflecting the impact of these barriers on record clearing.

Download the full report for report findings, recommendations, maps, graphics, and state-by-state analysis: https://bit.ly/lp-high-cost-of-a-fresh-start-22

The report’s appendix cointains a state-by-state analysis of the role played by outstanding court debt in qualifying for record clearing.  It may be separately downloaded at this link:  https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/criminal-justice/High-Cost-of-Fresh-Start-Appendix.pdf 

###

The nonprofit National Consumer Law Center® (NCLC®) works for economic justice for low-income and other disadvantaged people in the U.S. through policy analysis and advocacy, publications, litigation, and training.

The Collateral Consequences Resource Center (CCRC) works to restore rights and opportunities to people with a history of arrest or conviction through research and policy advocacy.

 

—

1 2 3 … 13