SANTA CLARA, CA — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), and several individuals have filed a lawsuit against the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department, challenging what they describe as unconstitutional concealed carry permit requirements.
Filed as Blank v. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department, the case takes aim at both the high costs and the mandatory psychological exam imposed on applicants seeking a concealed carry permit. According to the plaintiffs, the county’s fee structure effectively places the right to carry out of reach for many law-abiding citizens.
“Fees this extreme for the application of a simple permit can only be in place for one reason – to keep the peaceable citizens of Santa Clara from exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. He described the system as a “pay-to-play scheme” that discriminates against those unable to afford the costs.
The complaint alleges that Santa Clara County has created a “wealth qualification” to replace what was once a political patronage system for issuing permits, ultimately suppressing residents’ ability to exercise their constitutional rights.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb highlighted that the expenses extend beyond the initial application fee. Applicants must also pay for training, fingerprinting, and a psychological exam, with total costs exceeding $2,000 in some cases. “It’s not a far stretch to see that this fee structure is simply another way to deliberately discourage people from exercising their constitutional right to bear arms,” Gottlieb said.
This lawsuit represents another step in the growing legal pushback against jurisdictions that impose high costs and unusual requirements for concealed carry permits, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision reaffirming the right to carry in public for self-defense.
Efforts like this emphasize the importance of keeping the right to bear arms accessible to all citizens, not just those who can afford excessive government-imposed costs. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for concealed carry policies across California and beyond.
