Last week the CRPA and the Law Offices of Michele and Associates decided enough was enough.



In Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in NYSRPA v Bruen he opined that while CCW permits are allowable under the Bruen rationale, excessive fees and wait times are not.  He specifically admonished the State that the bureaucratic nature of government is to be expected, but at a certain point bureaucracy can be seen as a direct impingement on someone’s ability to exercise a fundamental, specifically enumerated right.



When that happens a right delayed is literally a right denied.



And yes… we have seen this.



The California legislature (prior to Bruen, when they thought it would really matter) mandated that an issuing agency issue a permit (or deny a permit) within 90 days of the application being turned in.



Three months is a long time, but… as the LTC has opined frequently, “It is unreasonable to demand competency on the part of the government.”



LASD feels that a year, or a year and a half, is perfectly reasonable though.



Keep in mind that this is a direct violation of the California Penal Code.



Sac re bleu!  The government breaking the law?!  I am shocked… shocked I say!



But why stop at a year and a half?  Why not also throw in exorbitant fees?  Maybe a psychological evaluation for each applicant while we are at it?… Oh… and they can pay for that too.



(As an aside… I want to talk about this for a minute.  There are several IAs… issuing agencies… that have taken the position that ALL applicants must undergo a psych eval.  Thankfully, the number of IAs doing this is small, but they are there.  I believe this is beyond arbitrary and capricious, and borders on a flat-out civil rights violation.  Let’s think about this for a second:  While I would fight tooth and nail against mandatory psych evals for the first-time purchase of a weapon, there at least bears a rational basis if the legislature required one.  I still think it would be completely unconstitutional, but at least the State could fashion a reasonable argument.  Requiring a potential CCW applicant to undergo a psych eval is odd in the extreme.  The person already owns guns.  If they were psychologically unstable, there is literally nothing that would prevent them from using those guns in a nefarious manner.  The fact the State feels having a psych eval would prevent an existing gun owner from engaging in antisocial conduct suggests the State believes that malum prohibitum laws can prevent people from engaging in malum in se conduct.  This might be suggestive that those in the State calling for this requirement are in need of psychological intervention themselves.)



This also relates to the SB2 requirement that a 16-hour CCW class (or an eight-hour renewal class) also include a one-hour component on mental health.



For what purpose?



And whose mental health?



The law as drafted does not specify what component of mental health be discussed.  It does not even mandate the mental health component be tangentially related to firearms.  An instructor could take that hour and opine on the mental health deficiencies of our elected representatives in Sacramento and they would be 100% compliant with the statutory framework.



But I digress…



So… the CRPA and Michel and Associates decided the time was ripe.  Last week they filed a lawsuit against LASD:  The case is currently called CRPA v LASD, but will probably ultimately change to Velasquez v LASD, as these things sometimes do when the State kvetches about public interest group plaintiffs.



In any event, the lawsuit challenges LASD’s institutional policy of unreasonably delaying and creating arbitrary and capricious roadblocks to an applicant’s ability to exercise their right to bear arms.



Incidentally, it also raises a major issue we are currently litigating for a client regarding the Constitutional validity of the State of California not recognizing out-of-state permits, something we have talked about before.  Rights are not bifurcated or diminished upon traversing state lines.  The Fourth Amendment is in complete force when a visitor from Nevada rents a hotel room in Anaheim.  Yet, that same visitor is not able to bear arms when she is here.  California refuses to recognize out-of-state permits and will not grant a permit to an out-of-state resident.



I am proud of CRPA for taking up this fight, and you should be too.  If you are not a member of CRPA, now is the time to join.  Regardless of your membership status, this is the time to support this litigation with a contribution.



Recent Posts

The Apache

Six years ago Sandy, Chaney, and I traveled to Sydney, Australia.       Chaney had just graduated from the Orange County School for Performing Arts,

Read More »
The Verdict

The Verdict

Last Thursday was a day that will be long remembered.  The jury spoke, and our Republic died.     That is not hyperbole.  Donald Trump

Read More »
Learning From Others Blog

Learning From Others

This morning I received an email from the Orange County Safari Club International Chapter.  I get these emails regularly trying to cajole me to actually

Read More »

Comments (3)

  • Adam Sheck Reply

    You bring up so many valid issues. Having recently renewed and having another 2 years for much of CCW permitting to be resolved, my biggest concern is ‘sensitive locations’ and whether I can carry ANYWHERE in California besides the sidewalks come 1 January. Hopefully one of the injunctions filed will take care of this pronto!

    12/13/2023 at 08:27
  • Orville Wright Reply

    Thank You Steven!!

    12/13/2023 at 08:39
  • Norm Ellis Reply

    Yes, make politicians take a pysch test and random drug and alcohol test like they do to commercial pilots and aerospace companies!!!

    12/18/2023 at 15:58

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *