Santa Clara County, CA — Gun-rights advocates are taking Santa Clara County to court over what they call an “outrageous” concealed-carry permit process that makes it nearly impossible for average residents to exercise their rights.
The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), joined by five local residents, filed suit against the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department in federal court. Their complaint argues the county’s CCW system is unconstitutional, combining excessive fees, invasive psychological exams, and even political contribution disclosures into a process that chills both the Second Amendment and the First Amendment.
The Price Tag on a Right
Santa Clara’s process is one of the most expensive in the state. To get a CCW permit, applicants face:
- A $976 county application fee
- About $400 in training costs
- A $500 mandatory psychological exam
- Extra charges for fingerprinting and renewals
In total, residents are paying around $2,000 upfront, with $850 in renewal costs every two years .
CRPA President and General Counsel Chuck Michel put it plainly: “Santa Clara has continually doubled down, but with this lawsuit today, we are sending the message that enough is enough.”
A “Wealth Test” for Carrying
The lawsuit claims the county has effectively created a “wealth qualification” for gun rights. SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut called it a “pay-to-play scheme” that forces citizens to choose between their financial well-being and their right to self-defense.
SAF founder Alan Gottlieb echoed that concern, saying: “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.”
Mandatory Psych Exams for Everyone
One of the most controversial requirements is a psychological evaluation demanded of every applicant. California law gives sheriffs discretion to order exams only in rare cases where there’s a real concern about mental fitness. But Santa Clara forces it on all applicants — treating ordinary, law-abiding citizens as if they are mentally unfit before they’ve even applied .
The lawsuit compares this blanket testing to the old “good cause” requirements that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022). Plaintiffs argue that Santa Clara is trying to bring back subjective barriers under a new name.
Political Speech Under Fire
The complaint also highlights another disturbing element: the county’s CCW application website “strongly implies that campaign contribution disclosures are part of the licensing process” . Lawyers say this suggestion ties the right to carry a firearm to public exposure of political speech — a clear First Amendment violation.
Given Santa Clara’s recent history, this is especially concerning. The prior sheriff, Laurie Smith, was ousted after scandals involving corruption and favoritism in CCW issuance. Her staff faced criminal charges tied to a “pay-to-play” system. Critics argue the new policies have merely swapped backroom corruption for an official, financial barrier.
Stopping The Madness Before It Spreads
Other California counties — including Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Alameda — charge far less for permits and don’t require psychological exams. Santa Clara’s approach is an outlier, and the plaintiffs say it must be struck down before it spreads.
The CRPA calls this lawsuit part of its larger “CCW Reckoning Project”, aimed at forcing resistant jurisdictions to follow the Bruen decision. As Michel said, this case isn’t just about Santa Clara — it’s about setting a precedent to stop other counties from trying the same tactics.
The case, Blank v. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department, now heads to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. If successful, it could dismantle the county’s costly system and send a clear warning to other anti-gun jurisdictions nationwide.
For now, Santa Clara residents who want to carry a firearm for self-defense are stuck with a $2,000 “poll tax” on their rights. But gun-rights advocates are confident that the courts will strike it down, just as they did with “good cause.”
We are in dangerous times! We have ONLY MET A THIRD of our funding goals! Will you help out?
Third N.J. Municipality Votes To Refund Citizen’s Gun Carry Permit Fees!! Win for Gun Owners
Giving credit where it’s due, Californistan continues to lead the nation in the development of idiotic rules of law. From punishing petroleum refineries to over-taxing manufacturers to the point said manufacturers are fleeing to Texas and Florida, the demoncraps have destroyed Cali. Geographically, it’s a beautiful state. Politically, it’s a morally bankrupt sewage processing plant.
if only these whole ass politicians would be forced to take a pysch evaluation for dreaming up unconstitutional restrictions like these on civil rights, and then be committed when found criminally insane to a mental institution of their choice.
Infringement, blatant infringement. What part of, “Shall not be infringed” is difficult to understand? EVERY government official has to swear to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States, why are they not held accountable to it? Is this not treason? Is this not tyranny? Are not both of these capital crimes and justly due of capitol punishment? When the laws against tyranny and treason are actually enforced things will change for the better. It starts with LOCAL law enforcement. They too swore to uphold and defend the constitution against ALL ENEMIES foreign and DOMESTIC. Why is law enforcement… Read more »
Despite the licensing process being unconstitutional every which way from Sunday … If a person with a carry permit from Santa Clara County commits an illegal act of violence with a firearm, is the psychologist who gave a passing grade to the perpetrator now open to a civil suit? That would have a chilling effect on everyone in the psych profession and give reason to either not pass anyone or even participate.
Psychiatry is a pseudo-science much like astrology.
IMOA, Gun owners need to clog up the Santa Clara County Offices phone lines and let them know these fees are excessive, unconstitutional and controversial psychological evaluation. Gun owners also, need to attend the Santa Clara County Board of Commissioners meetings to voice their opinions too.
I have to wonder how many people that couldn’t afford the fees, decided to take the chance and just carry anyway.
There has to be something in the water in California!
Maybe they should require Mandatory Psych Exams before they give out free needles .
Perhaps psych exams should be for all LEO, Legislature and Judicial branch?
They only one upped it from NY, and NJ.