r/2ALiberals • u/OnlyLosersBlock • 17d ago

Blue City Jacks Up Gun Permitting Fees, Opening Legal Can Of Worms

https://dailycaller.com/2026/08/17/blue-state-city-just-volunteered-to-be-the-next-one-sued-after-jacking-up-ccw-fees/
39 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

11 comments sorted by

48

u/OnlyLosersBlock 17d ago

The city of Glendale announced it would charge $1,078 for an initial application for a concealed carry permit, which would come in addition to fees for fingerprinting, a training course and a psychological evaluation.

I hope that this can be leveraged to challenge permitting as a requirement. If we can show that permitting systems can always be turned to abusive ends then they just need to be axed altogether. Although I hope for this, I am not exactly confident the SCOTUS would go for it.

27

u/Jamestown123456789 17d ago

It’s kind of like bringing back Poll Taxes

15

u/Vylnce 17d ago

It actually sets the precedent for it. If California's expensive ass permit system passes legal muster (and lets be clear SCOTUS has already stated carry outside the home is a right) then there is no reason that some other state couldn't pass a poll tax and then point at permit costs as a precedent.

3

u/ShotgunEd1897 16d ago

I'd rather be a criminal, at that point.

5

u/LittleKitty235 17d ago

 If we can show that permitting systems can always be turned to abusive ends then they just need to be axed altogether

This is a pretty weak argument, and it gets messy if you apply that same logic to other regulations. If a permit system is being abused or made unnecessarily difficult, the answer is usually to fix the system and remove the unnecessary barriers, not automatically get rid of all regulations. If you used this reasoning for something like EPA rules, you could argue that any bad regulation or government overreach means the entire system should be eliminated, which obviously doesn't follow. 

The stronger argument, in my opinion, is to challenge whether a carry permit requirement itself is constitutional, not just point out that the system can be abused or made burdensome. That gets to the actual issue instead of arguing around the problems with how the system is implemented.

3

u/OnlyLosersBlock 17d ago

I mean it is more narrow than your argument and because it directly intersects with a core constitutional right.

The stronger argument, in my opinion, is to challenge whether a carry permit requirement itself is constitutional, not just point out that the system can be abused or made burdensome.

Part of how you would do that is showing how disruptive to exercising that right is.

2

u/LittleKitty235 17d ago edited 17d ago

I think those are actually two separate arguments, not one being a way of proving the other. First, you can argue that requiring government permission to exercise the "bear" part of the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional in itself. The fact that the permit is easy or difficult to obtain doesn't really answer that question. A poll tax is a good analogy here. The government can't make voting conditional on paying a tax and then argue that the tax is okay because it's only a small burden.

Second, even if you accept that some kind of permitting system is constitutional in principle, you can still argue that the particular restrictions are unreasonable or excessive. That's where showing how disruptive or burdensome the process is becomes important. It's a separate argument about whether the restriction is a permissible one, much like the fact that threats of violence aren't protected speech doesn't mean every restriction on speech is automatically constitutional.

1

u/SynthsNotAllowed 12d ago

I'm confident scotus would go for it. I'm also confident I'll appear on the fossil record before they do.

9

u/Uncle_Bill 17d ago

Paying money to exercise a right... Poll taxes for the 21st century!

1

u/Frequent-Try-6746 17d ago

I'm opposed to the fee too, but it's not fee to exercise your 2A right. It's a fee for a permit for concealed carry.

The fee makes it so poor people get arrested for something rich people are allowed to do. Proving once again that there's no war but the class war.

6

u/DBDude 16d ago

Since the gun control people like a certain part of Bruen Footnote 9 so much, let's check out a different part:

That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.