Quote of the Day
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has systematically denied thousands of law-abiding Californians their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home—not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay that renders this constitutional right meaningless in practice.
The scope of this constitutional violation is staggering. Between January
2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two—a mere 0.05% approval rate that cannot be explained by legitimate disqualifying factors alone. This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.The mechanics of this obstruction are equally damning. Defendants force
applicants to wait an average of 281 days—over nine months—just to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days (nearly three years). The median delay is 372 days. These delays far exceed California’s own statutory
requirement that licensing authorities provide initial determinations within 90 days, demonstrating Defendants’ flagrant disregard for both state law and constitutional obligations.The human cost is profound. As of May 2025, approximately 2,768
applications for new licenses remain pending, with interviews scheduled as late as November 2026—more than two years after some applications were first submitted. Numerous applicants simply gave up and withdrew their applications, often after waiting months in Defendants’ deliberately stalled process. These are not abstract statistics; they represent thousands of law-abiding citizens who have been stripped of their constitutional right to self-defense outside their homes.U.S. Department of Justice
September 30, 2025
United States of America v. Los Angels County Sheriffs Department, and Robert Luna, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Los Angeles County (backup here)
According to numerous sources, and Copilot:
until the LA County concealed carry case, DOJ had never used § 12601 for Second Amendment violations. That makes this lawsuit a historic first—a signal that DOJ now considers systemic denial of gun rights a civil rights issue.
Copilot has this to say about my assertion the infringement will continue until criminal charges are pursued against the perpetrators:
Will Infringements Stop Without Criminal Charges?
Not likely. Civil suits can force policy changes, but they don’t carry the deterrent weight of personal accountability. Officials can stall, delay, or reinterpret rulings without fear of jail time. That’s why your call for criminal enforcement resonates—it’s about consequences, not just corrections.
Copilot offered to draft a model indictment. I accepted the offer:
United States District Court
Criminal Indictment United States of America v. [Defendants]
Count One – Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241)
The Grand Jury charges:
- Beginning on or about January 1, 2022, and continuing through the present, in the County of [X], State of [Y], the defendants [Name 1], [Name 2], and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly and willfully conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate citizens in the free exercise and enjoyment of rights secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States, namely, the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
- The object of the conspiracy was to obstruct and delay the issuance of concealed carry permits to qualified applicants, through intentional administrative backlog, arbitrary denials, and the imposition of unlawful requirements not authorized by state law.
- In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendants:
- Directed staff to ignore or delay processing of applications.
- Required applicants to submit additional documentation not required by law.
- Denied permits without cause or explanation.
- Maintained internal communications expressing intent to “slow-walk” approvals to discourage lawful carry.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 241.
Count Two – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242)
The Grand Jury further charges:
- On or about [specific date], in the County of [X], State of [Y], defendant [Name] acting under color of law as [Title/Position], did willfully deprive [Victim Name], a citizen of the United States, of rights secured by the Constitution, namely the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
- The deprivation occurred when [Name], acting in his official capacity, denied [Victim] a concealed carry permit despite full legal eligibility, and did so based on personal bias against firearm ownership and in furtherance of the conspiracy described in Count One.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.
Notice of Special Findings
The Grand Jury finds that the offenses charged:
- Were committed under color of law.
- Involved multiple victims.
- Were part of a pattern or practice of rights violations.
Here is what others are saying:
- DOJ sues LA sheriff’s office in its first-ever gun-rights lawsuit over carry delays
- Justice Department files suit against LA County Sheriff over concealed carry delays | Fox News
- Justice Department sues LA sheriff’s department over gun permit delays
- DOJ sues LA over ‘unreasonable’ gun permit delays
- Justice Department Lawsuit Alleges Los Angeles Sheriff Processes Concealed Carry Licenses Too Slowly
- Feds sue L.A. County sheriff for ‘unreasonable’ delays in issuing concealed gun permits
- Justice Department files lawsuit against Los Angeles County Sheriff in support of gun owners seeking permits – CBS Los Angeles (see the Sheriff’s Department’s response here)
This is a good start. But I won’t be popping the cork on the champagne until the first perp goes to jail with all their appeals exhausted.
If you read Neil Schulman’s “Stopping Power” you will see that this sort of thing has been going on for many decades in the LA area. He describes a nearby outfit (Santa Monica, I think) that had issued zero permits. When one of the permitting board members wanted a permit, he didn’t dare ask his own board; instead he went to the gun-friendly Sheriff of Beverly Hills for his permit. Unfortunately for him, that Sheriff told Neil who wrote it up in his newspaper column.
Can we get some traction against the ridiculous Commiefornia “authorized” pistol list next?
Agree about criminal charges. Or at least, they could sue the Sheriff personally instead of in his official capacity. That gets their attention and that of spouses and children. And can we add a conspiracy charge. Ask Copilot.