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