$2,000 for a Carry Permit? Santa Clara County Fees Challenged

A California county drops its restrictions on red dot sights, weapon-mounted flashlights, and single-action 1911-style pistols for concealed carry permit holders in a lawsuit settlement, while gun owners await ATF guidance on suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Contra Costa County settlement: Bill Sack, senior director of legal operations at the Second Amendment Foundation, which sued, says the county had barred permit holders from carrying firearms with modern red dot sights and flashlights, as well as old-style single-action pistols like 1911 and 2011 models. California requires each carried firearm to be listed on the permit, so carrying an unlisted gun can lead to legal trouble. The settlement was signed this week, and Sack says the county’s policy is now gone, including for the live-fire test required to get a permit. The county has 10 days to update its website; Sack says as of the interview the site had not yet changed. California carry permit costs and requirements: Sack argues California’s carry process includes unconstitutional hurdles, including a psychiatric exam, long processing delays, and high fees in some counties. He says the Second Amendment Foundation has a lawsuit against Santa Clara County, where an initial application costs upwards of $2,000, with renewals of several hundred dollars every two years. He compares that to about $30 in Pennsylvania and argues fees that high create a financial barrier to a constitutional right. NFA suppressors and short-barreled firearms: After last year’s tax law eliminated the taxes tied to the National Firearms Act, the Second Amendment Foundation filed three lawsuits arguing the remaining registration requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns should be thrown out. In the first case to rule, Jensen, the court struck down those registration requirements as unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction protecting the plaintiffs’ members, including those of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and other national organizations on the case. Sack says the ruling leaves logistical questions about how purchases and transfers work for people covered by the injunction. ATF has promised guidance, which was expected Friday but had not been released at the time of the interview. Supreme Court assault weapons ban case: Respondents’ briefs are due Oct. 21, with oral arguments set for Dec. 2 and a decision likely in June. Greg Bishop referenced an Everytown Law attorney’s argument from last week that features like pistol grips and adjustable stocks make firearms more deadly. Sack says he thinks the Court will rule against the bans, arguing those features are about comfort and fit, that firearms owned in the tens of millions for lawful purposes like AR-15s can’t be banned under the Court’s past tests, and that the 1990s federal ban was never constitutional just because it wasn’t challenged. Should states set limits on which firearms carry permit holders can carry? Leave your thoughts in the comments. #SecondAmendment #GunRights #ATF #SupremeCourt #CenterSquare #TheStates