In layman’s terms: gun rights groups are suing a California county for constitutional infringements in the form of grossly high fees to exercise concealed carry rights.
It’s no longer a secret that liberal, anti-gun states are trying to price citizens out of their rights, as underscored by a significant lawsuit filed this week challenging one California county’s mandated fees that reach as high as $2,000 for a concealed carry permit.
On September 22, Second Amendment Foundation, joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, filed a complaint known as Robert M. Blank, et al. v. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
SAF, introducing the lawsuit on X, summarized it this way:
When all expenses to the applicant are factored in, Santa Clara is the most expensive place in the country to get a CCW permit, reaching as much as $2,000 for a two-year permit, with renewals after that costing around $500 every two years.
The expenses borne by an applicant are as follows, according to the complaint:
- Application fee: $976.00 ($488 initial + $488 issuance), up from $662
- Required training course: $250-$400
- Required psychological examination: $500
- Live Scan fingerprinting: $100 (including $20 local fee + $10-$158 service fee)
- Renewal fee (every 2 years): $447
- Renewal training course: $250-$400
“Over a 10-year period, a law-abiding resident of Santa Clara County can expect to pay approximately $5,396.00 to exercise the ‘right’ of self-defense,” states the complaint.
The lawsuit also challenges the constitutionality of the psychological exam requirement noting, “…there is no statutory authority (nor any constitutional authority) for conditioning the exercise of a fundamental right on submission to psychological testing for every applicant without evidence and good cause.”
The complaint also brings forth defenses that the Bruen decision anticipated and addressed:
As noted, the Bruen Court anticipated this kind of obstruction. The relevant metric should not be not whether fees reflect the true cost of processing applications, but whether they have the effect of denying ordinary citizens their right to carry arms for self-defense.
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief.
