Gun Rights Group Sues California Sheriff Over $2,000 Fees, Political Disclosures

The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), joined by the Second Amendment Foundation, has filed suit against the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department over what it calls an unconstitutional concealed-carry (CCW) regime. In CRPA’s September 22, 2025 press release, President and General Counsel Chuck Michel frames the case as part of the group’s ongoing “CCW Reckoning Project,” arguing Santa Clara is one of several jurisdictions resisting the Supreme Court’s Bruen mandate for objective, non-discretionary licensing. 

The stakes are bigger than a single county: if these rules stand, they become a blueprint other agencies can copy. If they fall, they set precedent that could force meaningful reform across California.

Two Grand To Exercise A Right

CRPA’s press release lays out the math bluntly: nearly $2,000 just to obtain a new permit – about $1,000 in county-driven fees to apply, $400 in mandatory training, $500 for a psychological exam, plus extra costs for fingerprinting – and the permit must be renewed every two years with more fees. That’s not just “administrative friction”; it’s a wealth test. As a policy matter, we expect public-safety programs to be funded by general revenues, not by erecting toll booths around constitutional rights. If the county can charge this much for carry, what stops it from pricing out ordinary people entirely?

From “Good Cause” To “Good Psyche”?

CRPA says Santa Clara requires every applicant to undergo a psychological evaluation – without individualized cause. State law, as CRPA notes, contemplates discretionary use of such testing where there’s legitimate concern, but not a universal psychological gauntlet. Before Bruen, many “may-issue” jurisdictions hid behind subjective “good cause” standards; Santa Clara’s blanket psyche exam feels like a modern re-skin of the same idea – subjectivity by another name. Due process demands more than “everyone must prove they’re normal” before exercising a right.

The Political-Disclosure Curveball

CRPA’s complaint also flags a First Amendment problem: the county’s CCW portal “strongly implies” applicants must comply with the Levine Act (campaign-contribution disclosures) as part of the licensing process. Even the hint that your political giving must be disclosed to the very office deciding your permit chills speech and association. Whether the county intended it as a clean-government signal after past scandals or not, compelled disclosure (or the perception of it) in a gun-licensing context is a terrible look – and constitutionally suspect. Rights don’t come with a loyalty oath.

CRPA TV: Fees, Psych Tests, And Speech Chills

On CRPA TV, host Kevin Small discussed with attorney Anna Barvir (Michel & Associates) to unpack the case. Small recaps the group’s recent litigation wins – LA County and the City of La Verne – then tees up Santa Clara as the next front: excessive fees, universal psych testing, and political-speech chilling. Barvir underscores that Santa Clara is an outlier on cost and is bundling requirements that go beyond objective, “simple” administrative rules. My view: the video captures the throughline – turning a right into a privilege for the wealthy and the politically compliant.

What The Lawyers Say The Law Actually Allows

Barvir explains that while California law lets issuing authorities recover costs for psychological testing, it does not hand out a blank check to test everyone. In her words, psych exams must be case-by-case, tied to evidence that a particular applicant raises a bona fide concern; otherwise, Santa Clara’s policy violates Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process. That’s the core legal theory: individualized suspicion can justify targeted testing; universal testing cannot. It’s a clean, principled line that courts can administer – and that squares with Bruen’s demand for objective criteria.

Counting Costs, Counting Rights

Barvir and Small also point to the cumulative burden: the initial tab approaches $2,000, and renewals pile on hundreds more every other year. For many families, that’s a mortgage payment or a month of childcare – recurring. CRPA’s press release describes this as a “wealth test,” and it’s hard to disagree. If the government cannot set a poll tax on voting, it shouldn’t be able to impose a de facto carry tax that locks out working-class applicants. Training and background checks can be neutral and affordable. This isn’t.

Why The Levine Act Language Matters

Pressed by Small, Barvir traces the Levine Act notice to county efforts to distance the sheriff’s office from past pay-to-play controversies. But she stresses two things: (1) the Act doesn’t actually apply to CCW applications, and (2) its presence on the county portal misleads applicants into believing political disclosures are expected. The chilled behavior cuts two ways: would-be applicants might avoid donating to local races – or avoid applying for a permit altogether. Either way, the First Amendment loses altitude so the Second can, too. That’s not “clean government”; that’s a constitutional tangle of the county’s own making.

What CRPA Is Asking The Court To Do

CRPA’s press release and the CRPA TV discussion both point toward injunctive relief: stop the blanket psych-testing rule, strip the Levine Act implication from the portal, and reset fees to reasonable, cost-tethered levels. None of this would eliminate background checks or training, and none of it would prevent targeted psych screenings when real evidence warrants it. It would simply return the process to objective, affordable, non-retaliatory guardrails – what Bruen and basic fairness already require.

Timelines, Dockets, And The Long Game

Viewers looking for a finish line got a dose of realism from Barvir: the court promptly set an initial Rule 26 scheduling hearing (she cites December 23), which is a good sign the case will move – but no one controls how fast complex constitutional litigation unfolds. Some of CRPA’s LA litigation moved quickly; others took longer. Barvir even floats the possibility that Santa Clara could go “all the way to the big show.” Translation: expect appeals, and remember that durable victories are often appellate victories.

Why This Case Could Echo Across California

CRPA, in its press release, emphasizes that individual suits are about more than one county. If Santa Clara’s approach falls, counties tempted to replicate it will think twice. If it survives, expect copycats: steep fees justified as “cost recovery,” universal psych screens dressed up as “safety,” and subtle political disclosures normalized in licensing portals. This is precisely why CRPA calls it a Reckoning – you stop the bad ideas early, or spend years uprooting them after they spread.

The County’s Likely Defense – And Why It Falls Short

Expect Santa Clara to argue that (1) its fees merely cover administrative costs, (2) public-safety demands higher scrutiny via universal screening, and (3) the Levine blurb is just informational. But if costs truly track costs, the county should be able to prove it – line-item transparency would resolve that quickly. On psych testing, case-by-case is a reasonable tool; blanket isn’t. And the Levine note? If it doesn’t apply, it shouldn’t be on the portal – period. The cleaner fix is also the constitutional one.

A Rights-Respecting CCW Process Isn’t Hard

There’s a straightforward model counties can follow: publish clear timelines and transparent fee schedules tied to actual overhead; use state-standardized training at fair-market prices; reserve psych evaluations for documented red flags; and purge any political-speech entanglements from the process. That approach respects the Second Amendment and the First, treats applicants with dignity, and keeps the focus on genuine public safety rather than gatekeeping.

Stop Building Toll Roads On Constitutional Rights

CRPA’s complaint, as summarized in its press release, and the deep-dive conversation between Kevin Small and Anna Barvir on CRPA TV, paint a coherent picture: Santa Clara County has turned CCW licensing into an expensive, invasive, and politically fraught obstacle course. Some regulation is inevitable; weaponizing cost and discretion is not. My take is simple: if the government wants safer streets, it should target dangerous conduct – not price out and chill the rights of the law-abiding. This case gives the courts a chance to say so, clearly, so everyone else in California gets the message.