One city in California charges $1,000+ for a carry permit, more than the average cost to buy a pistol

30
639

By JAKE FOGELMAN | THE RELOAD

Residents of one Los Angeles County suburb will have to shell out big bucks to exercise their right to carry a firearm.

On Thursday, the La Verne Police Department announced it was opening an application process for city residents who wish to obtain a Carry Concealed Weapon license. The department’s website spells out a lengthy application process, including a department-approved psychological screening and a series of fees totaling nearly $1,100 for all first-time applicants. Renewing applicants will also be forced to pay almost $650 every two years after that.

The unveiling of the application process and exorbitant fee structure arrives nearly nine months after the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to carry a firearm in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling struck down subjective “may-issue” permitting standards, including California’s previous carry regime. It ensured that lawful adults must, at the very least, have an avenue to obtain a license to carry so long as they meet objective criteria.

At the time, some gun-rights advocates worried that some former “may-issue” jurisdictions would simply replace their old systems with an objective but onerous process meant to discourage new applicants. La Verne’s new application process and high costs schedule validate some of those fears and will likely thrust the city into a legal battle with those advocates.

La Verne’s high fees have already caught the attention of at least one gun-rights group in the state. The California Rifle & Pistol Association sent a letter to the city on Monday through its law firm, Michel & Associates, warning the city to reduce its fees or face the group in court.

Read that letter and more at The Reload.com

30 COMMENTS

  1. People seem surprised that I do not support mandatory training in order to purchase a gun.
    This is why.
    .
    Anti-gun politicians will pass laws that are designed to make it impossible for the average person to exercise their fundamental human right to self protection. Want to carry a gun? Sure, no problem. We do require a permit, it is only $1,000, and requires renewal every two years.
    .
    Try to get CCW training in Chicago? Good luck. Try to get a CWP in DC? Not reality for almost everyone. Just too difficult to find the classes, get into the classes, and if you do get a class scheduled, expect it to be cancelled a day before. Next possible chance to take it? Three to five months from now.
    .
    This is just back door gun banning. Nothing less.

      • No, I am talking about carrying a gun.
        This might have tipped you off. “Try to get CCW training in Chicago? Good luck. Try to get a CWP in DC? Not reality for almost everyone.”
        .
        That I also included gun ownership was not the purpose of my comment, and your assumption that IS the comment is 100% incorrect.

  2. You know, maybe this makes sense in California. Certainly the criminal element would never pay the fees. I don’t like gun control of any type, but in a huge city putting a monetary fee may separate the criminals from the law abiding citizens. They need to drop other requirements, however. That’s just BS. But I would gladly pay 1000 dollars for the right to carry in LA. Or even in Los Anchorage, if I were to want to use our parks or trails. Then, when you shot someone out of self defense and they were packing without a permit it would make a difference.

  3. It’s called economic warfare. If ‘they’ can’t stop ‘us’ from pursuing a completely legal purchase, then they will simply make the paperwork or the price, a burden to great for us lowly citizens to bear. You’ll notice that all districts forced to allow it’s citizens to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, have come up with high permit costs and/or ridiculous wait times for paperwork and ultimate possession, and sometimes crazy requirements like home inspections.

    I’m not one to call for federal intervention, but since this is a way of preventing an exercise of Constitutional rights, then this is an actual federal jurisdiction. If we had a trustworthy DOJ/FBI, they would be the entities to step in and shut down these illegal regulations.

    • Yes and all the rich hollywoods and politicians security details should not be allowed to carry at all.

  4. They don’t believe poor people should have the right to carry, so they make it financially impossible for them to obtain a permit.

    Also, I’m pretty sure there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says anything about passing an exam from the witch doctor to have the right to own or carry a firearm.

      • Liar.
        The 2nd Amendment give each of us the Constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms’. ‘Keep’ means to posses and ‘bear arms’ means to carry. Look at the original intent of this Amendment and it clearly gives each citizen, not excluded by being a felon or being adjudicated crazy, the right to not only posses a firearm but to carry it as necessary. That gun don’t do you any good sitting at home in a safe.
        Never trust a lefty with our Constitution and NEVER trust anyone that claims to carry a firearm but publicly advocates limits on the same freedom for others.

  5. Any time a permit is required to exercise a constitutionally protected (2nd Amendment) right, it is no longer a right, but a granted privilege. If this goes unchallenged, it won’t be long before 1st Amendment protected rights to freedom of speech, religious preference etc. will also be subjected to official permission, license, permits, fees etc. Any elected official who accepts this premise, is in direct violation of their solemn oath of office to constitutional allegiance and adherence, and that includes any law enforcement officer who enforces an unconstitutional law.

  6. There is no shortage of moron town governments littered across the world that will be happy to impose their half baked liberal agenda on citizens.

    FTATH.

    Here’s La Verne’s new proposed fee schedule:

    1. Abortions. Free.
    2. Registration for Methodists, Catholics, etc. $500.00, per year.
    3. Free speech, letters to the Editor, blogging, etc. $400.00 per year.
    4. Protest marches to direct hate at all law enforcement, free.
    5. Obtaining a permit to carry a firearm, $1,000.00.

    But wait. Are these not all constitutionally protected liberties? Why yes, they are.

    We do not have to pay to enjoy our constitutionally recognized liberties. If you want to carry a firearm, you don’t have to pay. Just do it. If the wacko busy body governments don’t like it- well, FTATH.

  7. Who gives a rat’s tail what they do in California? It’s the pinkos in Juneau trying to turn Alaska into another California that we need to worry about.

    • Natural Alaskan says: “Who gives a rat’s tail what they do in California?”

      You already know this, but……

      It’s because there are those up here on the left who look at what they do in Cali as a how-to manual rather than a cautionary tale. Cheers –

  8. “…….The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Is a $1,000 fee an infringement? I think it is.

  9. Oops! Can’t tax a right! Slap a $1100 tax on voting and see how that ends. If it’s good for guns, it’s good for ballots.

          • Wrong, Greg.
            Driving is a right as well.
            EVERYTHING is a right, unless it infringes upon the (equal) rights of others. Stop parroting statist propaganda.

          • Greg:
            I agree totally. Rights exist whether there is an infringement on it or not.
            .
            Driving is not a right, but there is a fundamental human right to travel or move about without undue restrictions. (Crossing an international border for instance.) Driving is just one of many ways a person exercises that right.
            .
            Breathing is not a right. It is a biological function. A heartbeat is not a right, nor is sight.
            However, there is a fundamental human right to perform biological functions to remain alive. It is the “Life” part of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in the Declaration.
            .
            And, there is a fundamental human right to self defense against threats, both political and personal, and when a government unduly restricts the exercise of that right, it is an infringement. No different that stopping people from moving, or preventing someone from pursuing life.
            .
            When a community chooses to pursue a ridiculous cost in order for law abiding and responsible people to exercise a right to self defense, it is no different than censoring your speech, or preventing you from worshiping as you see fit.

        • Correct. To keep means you can have them. To bear means you can use them. It doesn’t say where or when. An inalienable right is one given by God. Carrying a gun under your coat isn’t specified.

        • That it does not specify a when/where means that it was not intended as a limiting Amendment. It was codified to reinforce the fact that NO limits were intended.

Comments are closed.