By The Daily Caller (U.S.) | Created at 2026-08-07 01:11:46 | Updated at 2026-08-07 05:03:02
8 hours ago
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) announced that a California sheriff’s department has settled a lawsuit regarding the issuance of concealed carry permits.
Pro-Second Amendment organizations and individual plaintiffs originally filed the suit in December 2023, accusing California jurisdictions of charging excessive fees and being dilatory in processing applications for carry permits. The group celebrated the settlement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) in a Thursday release. (RELATED: Biden Justice Really Worried Judges Might Actually Apply Second Amendment In Gun Cases)
So ends CRPA v. LASD, a case we originally put together to try to deal with many different carry rights issues in California at once. Probably too many at once!
I was handling it directly until I left M&A last summer, but SAF has of course remained a plaintiff since then too.… pic.twitter.com/D6IVfuf5u3
Other plaintiffs in the case included Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation, seven individuals and the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA). The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department did not respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“CRPA and our strategic partners have been monitoring local jurisdictions to make sure they comply with the Supreme Court’s mandates for issuing licenses to carry firearms for self-defense,” CRPA President C.D. Michel told the DCNF. “If they take too long, charge too much, or impose other obstacles to getting a license to carry, lawsuits like this force them to.”
“This lawsuit has resulted in lower fees, quicker processing of applications, and the ability for non-residents to apply for permits for the first time,” Michel continued. “CRPA’s efforts across California will continue, and we are now focusing on other cities and counties that are abusing the process. The latest example from Idaho shows how good guys with a firearm deter criminals and make us safer.”
SAF also celebrated the settlement, noting it was just a beginning.
“We are pleased to have resolved one small matter in the vast sea of unconstitutional gun laws in California. Forcing the state to issue non-resident permits, reducing processing fees, and ensuring compliance with the state’s own statute for CCW issuance timelines are not insignificant,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut told the DCNF. “There is no doubt that California continues to be the petri dish for unconstitutional gun laws that spread to other hostile jurisdictions - and has been for decades. In fact, over a dozen of our more than 55 active cases are centered in California alone.”
“This settlement reflects a portion of SAF’s tireless work to defeat idealogues who thumb their collective noses at the Second Amendment rights of citizens,” Kraut continued. “We will continue to litigate as much as necessary to advance the restoration of constitutional rights of California residents and ensure the Second Amendment isn’t treated like a second-class right.”
GOA, which also took part in the litigation, hailed the settlement.
“Gun Owners of California welcomes this victory in CRPA v. LASD as another important step toward restoring respect for the right to bear arms,” GOA California Director Adam Wilson said. “California officials don’t get to ignore statutory deadlines or bury constitutional rights under endless delays. We will continue fighting until every qualified, law-abiding Californian can exercise their Second Amendment rights without unlawful government interference.”
In the initial lawsuit, CRPA accused the LASD of taking 12 to 18 months to process CCW applications, while some cities were charging fees as high as $1100 and requiring a psychological examination.
“[The La Verne Police Department] subjects applicants to an invasive psychological examination,” the initial complaint said, “This absurd policy is an outlier, even in California.”
In the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas warned that even “shall issue” jurisdictions (which California became after the decision) could face legal action. (RELATED: Samuel Alito Shreds Blue State’s ‘Spirit Of Aloha’ Legal Defense In ‘Vampire Rule’ Gun Ruling)
“[B]ecause 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,” Thomas said in a footnote of the opinion.
The settlement will not be official until approved by the Los Angeles County Claims Board. A similar suit by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is still pending.
