AVAILABLE 24/7
212-213-8511

January 16, 2023

Alameda County Sheriffs Threatened With Lawsuit for Slow, Invasive Concealed Carry Permitting | The Epoch Times Feature

Alameda County Sheriffs Threatened With Lawsuit for Slow, Invasive Concealed Carry Permitting


The Alameda County Sheriff’s Department is facing criticism over its issuing of concealed carry weapon (CCW) permits, with the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) sending a pre-litigation letter.

In addition to delays, complaints range from constitutional violations to invasive obstructions that cross not only California law but also a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, according to Attorney Konstadinos T. Moros, who represents the CRPA.

“Other than the rare elites who were already getting permits from Alameda before, we don’t know anybody who has been issued a permit in Alameda,” he said. “We haven’t received word that they are issuing permits, and further, they are placing all sorts of unreasonable requirements on applicants.”

Those requirements include asking whether an applicant has a home security system or cameras at their residence, where applicants intend to carry, and proof of income.

“That’s an invasion of privacy and it’s a barrier to keep people from applying in a country where six-year-olds shoot their teachers,” said California attorney Rex Parris, who is also mayor of Lancaster.

In his Sept. 16 letter to Alameda County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, Moros references N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which emphatically decided that the state of New York’s proper-cause requirement for obtaining an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

“Showing proper cause requires the additional showing of a ‘special need for self-defense’ in order for the applicant to qualify for a license to carry a handgun outside the home,” said Eleni Melekou, an attorney with the Pardalis and Nohavicka law firm in New York.

In the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas explained that permit proceedings that do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense are acceptable.

“The opinion specifically mentions fingerprinting, background checks, checks of mental-health records, and firearm training courses as a non-exhaustive list of preconditions that States may enforce for obtaining such a license,” Melekou told The Epoch Times.

However, psychological exams are not on the list, according to Moros.

“What Bruin said was that although you can require that people be peaceable, law-abiding citizens, you can’t have subjective requirements. And we think a psychological exam is inherently subjective because the kind of test that Alameda does, from what we’ve heard from one person, is a 300-question, multiple-choice exam and they evaluate you based on it,” he said. “That is very, very subjective.”

Another CRPA claim against Alameda County is that the cost of permitting is prohibitive in light of the U.S. Supreme Court deciding that an expensive permitting fee and lengthy wait times in processing applications deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

“Perhaps the most disturbing practice is just how long the Sheriff’s Office takes to process applications,” Moros added. “We have had several applicants contact us who applied back in June following the Bruen decision, and their applications languish with little or no action. This violates the Supreme Court’s ruling.”

Alameda’s application fee alone is $195 and the psychological exam costs $150, while states like Oregon, Washington, and New Hampshire are charging less than $100 for their permit fees.

“It’s discriminatory,” Parris alleges. “That’s the purpose. They don’t want poor people to have guns. The only class of people that the fees bar is people without financial resources. People with financial resources don’t feel it. The government distrusts poor people and so oftentimes, it takes the courts.”

The larger problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling is forcing the state to transition from a “may-issue” to a “shall-issue” permitting model.

“May-issue jurisdictions allow the issuing authority to use their discretion and [they] can deny an application even if the applicant meets the threshold requirements stipulated by state legislation,” Melekou added.

Prior to the Supreme Court decision, the Golden State was on a may-issue basis. But shall-issue means that issuing authorities are required to provide CCW permits.

CRPA issued a similar pre-litigation letter to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) in September 2022. However, since then, the LAPD has begun processing and issuing permits.

“The difference between Alameda and the LAPD is that Alameda seems to be throwing up every obstacle possible to not issue permits,” Moros told The Epoch Times.

The Alameda County Sheriffs have until Jan. 18 to respond to the letter, which included a draft of the complaint. But Moros doesn’t have great expectations.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if they ignore it and we have to file the lawsuit,” he added. “Maybe we’ll tweak the complaint a bit, but it’s pretty close to what we would actually file.”


Read the published article in The EPOCH TIMES

Want more PN news? Check out our legal news blog

If you have questions about the article, contact us at contact@pnlawyers.com or call 212.213.8511


Eleni Melekou

Eleni Melekou

Attorney

Eleni's practice focuses on commercial litigation, complex business, and contract disputes. Eleni represents a wide range of clients on the protection and enforcement of their Intellectual Property Rights i.e. trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. 

Eleni advises entrepreneurs on the formation and structure of their entity, registration of their trademarks and copyrights, and all the contractual matters of their business such as employment agreements, NDA, shareholder or operating agreements, and vendor agreements.

 Eleni has graduated from the New York University School of Law and received an LL.M. in Corporation Law and an Advanced Professional Certificate In Law and Business from NYU Stern School of Business. Her coursework at NYU focused on various financing methods and cross-border transactions. She has also received an LL.M. in Intentional Shipping Law with distinction from the Queen Mary University of London. 

 She is admitted to practice in the State of New York and Greece.

Taso Pardalis

Taso Pardalis

Partner

Taso was admitted to the New York State Bar in 2005 and since has been admitted to practice in the United States District Court, Southern District and Eastern District of New York, and The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. His cases are regularly reported in many major media outlets. Taso studied at New York Law School where he focused on Intellectual Property, Corporate and Business Law, and Sports and Entertainment.
Federal Court Admissions:
- United States District Court
- District Court for the Southern District of New York
- District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- United States Court of Appeals
Second Circuit
Publications
New York Law Journal


Connect with us

Visit our FacebookVisit our InstagramVisit our TwitterVisit our LinkedInVisit our YouTube channel
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. 
The viewing of this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Attorney Advertising: Prior results DO NOT guarantee similar results.

Copyright © 2023 Pardalis & Nohavicka LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website Designed & Developed by Ruxbo
magnifier linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram