A gun-rights group is taking issue with the Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) new concealed carry weapon permitting policy, which adds a $268 fee with 20 percent or $53 due at the time of the in-person interview.

“The fee is quite high at $268,” said attorney Konstadinos T. Moros who represents the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA). “This compares to the $150 total the LA Sheriff’s Department charges. It’s not clear why LAPD feels it can charge so much more.”

Neither the LAPD’s fee of $268 nor the Los Angeles Sheriffs’ fee of $150 includes the cost of the livescan or training class, which adds nearly $300 to the cost of becoming licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

“We are looking at more than a $500 effective price tag to exercise a constitutional right if you are getting a permit from LAPD,” Moros told The Epoch Times.

The LAPD, which did not immediately respond to requests for comment, previously told The Epoch Times that it temporarily suspended the application process for concealed carry permits while it evaluates the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in N.Y. State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“We are still waiting to see whether LAPD actually gets moving soon,” Moros said. “Releasing a policy is one thing, but actually processing applications in a reasonable time frame is another.”

In Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated good or proper cause requirements in concealed carry weapon permitting with Justice Clarence Thomas explaining that permit regimes that do not require applicants to show an atypical need for armed self-defense are acceptable.

On Sept. 16, the CRPA issued a pre-litigation letter to the LAPD demanding that it comply with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling by accepting applications for permitting within 45 days.

“If we do pursue a lawsuit against LAPD, the excessive expense would certainly be one of the claims, particularly for any working-class plaintiffs for whom $268 is not a trivial amount of money,” Moros added.

The letter to the LAPD threatening legal action was addressed to Chief Michel R. Moore and accuses the department of having unclear processes on how to apply for permits, endless wait times, subjective requirements, application procedures that violate applicants’ privacy, and the refusal to even accept applications for processing.