By Kostas Moros, Director of Legal Research and Education, Second Amendment Foundation
In the wake of Bruen, three main categories of Second Amendment issues have dominated the discourse as well as litigation efforts in the Second Amendment space – the “who”, “what”, and “where” questions. A fourth category, however, is rearing its head in the form of lengthy wait times and exorbitant fees associated with a carry permit application.
The first category – “who” – relates to who has the right to arms? Most agree violent criminals do not, but what about those convicted of nonviolent crimes? What about those who smoke marijuana occasionally, which is legal for recreational use in 24 states but still banned by federal law? The Supreme Court will likely need to grapple with some of these questions soon, as circuit splits have developed. And indeed, the Court recently agreed to review a case concerning marijuana’s intersection with the Second Amendment.
Next are the “what” questions, which pertain to the types of “arms” the Second Amendment protects. Currently, we all await the Supreme Court’s belated intervention to clarify that common rifles like AR15s and their magazines may not be banned.
Finally, there are the “where” questions that ask where carry is to be permitted. Following Bruen, a handful of the most fervently antigun states passed laws forbidding carry just about everywhere, even for those who go through the trouble of getting a CCW permit. Litigation is proceeding on that issue now, and the Supreme Court has recently announced it will review one such case arising out of Hawaii. (The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief in support of that petition).
But there is one other sub-category of cases that gets a bit less attention yet is no less important. With the Supreme Court in Bruen essentially blessing permitting regimes unless they involve “lengthy wait times” or “exorbitant fees,” one would think that state and local governments would steer clear of such practices. Yet sure enough, that is exactly what many anti-gun jurisdictions did to further undermine the right to carry.
In Los Angeles, for instance, the Sheriff’s Department is taking as long as two years to issue a carry permit. This not only violated the Second Amendment, but even California law, which sets a 120-day time limit for application processing in its Penal Code. Unfortunately, Attorney General Rob Bonta has refused to enforce that provision of state law.
In late 2023, SAF joined with the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners of California to sue the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) over these ridiculous wait times. We won a preliminary injunction against the practice, though the judge unfortunately limited it to just the named individual plaintiffs in the case. The Court explained that the historical licensing regimes LASD cited “appear to merely provide support for the proposition that there is a historical tradition for allowing CCW licensing regimes, generally. This tradition, however, does not appear to involve lengthy delays – let alone delays of 18 months or more.”
While that case is now moving towards settlement, these extensive delays also caught the attention of the United States Department of Justice, which recently announced that it was suing LASD over the same issues.
SAF has also filed a new lawsuit against Santa Clara’s exorbitant fees for a CCW permit. As our complaint explains, Santa Clara charges $976 in application fees, and about $500 for its mandatory psychological examination (which we are also separately challenging). Applicants must also pay about $400 for the two-day required training course, and another $100 or so for livescan fingerprinting. That’s about $2,000 in total expense, just to exercise a constitutional right! As our lawsuit argues, “The same kinds of abuses heaped upon the right to vote resulted in the ratification of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, abolishing poll taxes. Santa Clara County’s attempt to price less-wealthy citizens out of exercising their rights does not require a new amendment, just enforcement of the existing ones.”
The resistance by antigun cities and counties to the right to carry confirmed in Bruen is quite similar to the “massive resistance” that sprung up in response to the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education in southern states. SAF continues to fight to protect the right to carry from efforts to undermine it and we’ll be sure to keep you informed of those efforts at every turn.
The Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group dedicated to safeguarding and promoting the fundamental rights of individuals enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. SAF engages in aggressive legal action to ensure the principles of armed self-defense, personal liberty, and the ownership of arms are defended, secured, and restored. Through public education initiatives, SAF teaches the importance of the Second Amendment to promote a society that values and exercises the right to keep and bear arms.
