San Jose, California is already home to the most expensive concealed carry permit in the state, but the cost is going to climb even higher on July 1. Right now the city charges applicants a whopping $1,491 to obtain permission to exercise their right to bear arms, but on Wednesday the rate will increase to $1,591.
The city isn’t the only jurisdiction in California to charge four-figures to exercise a fundamental civil right. Santa Clara County, where former sheriff Laurie Smith was convicted by a civil jury for running a pay-to-play scheme involving rarely-issued “may issue” permits a few years ago, is still doing its best to keep the number of active permits low by charging $976 for the initial application fee, along with more costs for mandated psychological testing and firearms training.
The California Rifle & Pistol Association and Second Amendment Foundation are suing Santa Clara County over its fees, and if a judge rules the county out of line then San Jose’s fees could be on the chopping block soon after. As the groups alleged in their initial complaint, the high price to apply for a permit is undoubtably going to have a chilling effect on residents exercising their rights.
Santa Clara County’s new CCW policies have merely substituted an underground “pay-to-play” grift, for a broad daylight constitutionally corrupt grift, that is intended to dissuade most people from exercising a fundamental right. Ironically (or maybe unironically), Defendants’ website has a page titled “Apply for concealed carry weapon license.” That introductory page contains language and links to other websites which strongly imply that campaign contribution disclosures are part of the licensing process, by suggesting that CCW permit applicants are required to comply with Government Code § 84308 (the Levine Act) while their applications are pending.
… The Defendants’ policies of taxing a right out of the reach of citizens with modest means, imposing political speech regulations, and requiring intrusive psychological testing have just as much power to destroy a fundamental right as the pre-Bruen may-issue policies that laid the foundation for holding those rights hostage to political patronage. These unconstitutional practices are subject to the acid test of the Second Amendment “because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusing ends” thus the Supreme Court in its Bruen decision invited “constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”