DOJ Gives Glendale One Week to Cut $2,000 Carry Permit Cost
The Justice Department is putting Glendale, California, on a one-week clock. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Civil Rights Division sent a letter to the city's mayor, police chief, and city attorney warning that a lawsuit is coming unless the city lowers its concealed carry license costs. Dhillon's office calls the total cost of a Glendale permit unconstitutional. The Second Amendment Section of the Civil Rights Division is driving the action. Glendale recently raised its application fee from $100 to $1,078. With training, fingerprinting, and a psychological evaluation added, applicants now pay close to $2,000 for a permit that lasts three years. Dhillon's letter also argues that the city's process gives officials too much discretion, which puts it in the "may-issue" category the Supreme Court struck down in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Key Details
The numbers and demands in the letter are specific, and they set the terms for Glendale's response:
- Application fee: Raised from $100 to $1,078 in a recent increase.
- Total cost: Roughly $2,000 once training, fingerprinting, and a psychological evaluation are included.
- Permit validity: Three years.
- Deadline: One week from the letter to fix the problem before litigation.
- Recipients: The mayor, the police chief, and the city attorney.
- Agency: DOJ Civil Rights Division, Second Amendment Section, led by Harmeet K. Dhillon.
- Core principle quoted: Keeping and bearing arms is a right held by law-abiding, responsible citizens, not a privilege reserved for a select few.
- Discretion problem: Parts of Glendale's process give licensing officials open-ended authority, which the letter says converts the system into a may-issue scheme.
- Unspecified practices: The letter does not name which specific steps create the discretion problem.
Dhillon's letter does not spell out every objection. It does not identify the exact practices that make Glendale's scheme discretionary. The DOJ's case will likely turn on those specifics if it files suit.
Background
California is a may-issue state for concealed carry. Local sheriffs and police chiefs have long held broad authority to approve or deny carry applications. In Bruen, decided in 2022, the Supreme Court struck down New York's requirement that applicants show "proper cause" to carry in public. The Court held that the Second Amendment protects carrying outside the home, and that licensing schemes must be objective. Officials cannot decide who gets a carry license based on their own view of need. Lower courts have since struck or challenged licensing practices across the country, with the scrutiny focused on fees, delays, and discretionary standards. California's system has drawn repeated challenges. The California Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed Blank v. Santa Clara County last September. That case targets the mandatory psychological evaluation that California law allows local authorities to require. The DOJ also named the same evaluation requirement in its lawsuit against the San Jose carry licensing system, filed late last month. Glendale's letter is the next front in what is becoming a sustained federal push against California licensing practices.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
This letter affects anyone who lives in Glendale and wants to carry, and it matters to every California resident who faces similar costs. A $2,000 price tag puts a carry permit out of reach for many working people. Spread over three years, the permit costs about $667 per year before factoring in range time, ammunition, and transportation to required classes. Renewals at that price compound the burden. Residents of other California cities should check their own fee schedules. Many local agencies set fees independently, and a Glendale fight could set a template for challenges elsewhere. Watch three things. First, whether Glendale cuts its application fee to a level tied to actual processing costs. Second, whether the city drops or revises the mandatory psychological evaluation. Third, whether the DOJ files suit. If Glendale responds within the one-week window, the fight may end quickly. If it refuses, expect a complaint that tracks the San Jose case closely. Carry applicants in any California city should document every cost they pay and every delay they encounter. That record matters if a local agency later claims its process is reasonable.
DownRange Analysis
The fee problem is the easiest argument to win. A Bruen-compliant scheme cannot price a constitutional right out of reach, and a near-$2,000 total for a three-year permit fails any common-sense test. The psychological evaluation is harder for the state to defend. The Constitution does not require applicants to prove they are of sound mind before exercising a right. Federal law already disqualifies people adjudicated mentally defective or committed to institutions, and that tradition is narrow. Requiring every carry applicant to undergo a subjective examination goes far beyond it. An examiner's judgment, not an objective standard, would decide the outcome. For gun owners, the practical move is simple. Pull your city's current fee schedule and compare it to the state's allowable costs. Document every charge. Get involved with CRPA and SAF, both of which are already litigating these issues. If you are in Glendale or San Jose, contact your city council and ask in writing for the specific justification behind each fee. Public pressure works when it lands alongside federal pressure, and this case has both.
