Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Rights Delayed and Rights Denied: DOJ Steps-Up Pressure Over Permit Delays, Refusals to Process

Monday, June 9, 2025

Rights Delayed and Rights Denied: DOJ Steps-Up Pressure Over Permit Delays, Refusals to Process

It is almost exactly three years ago that the United States Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case of NYSRPA v. Bruen, invalidating the “may issue” carry licensing regime in New York State and in the five other jurisdictions that continued to use subjective or extraordinary standards (“proper cause”) to prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense.

Just days later, New York State’s Governor Kathy Hochul (D) responded to the “reckless” decision by announcing emergency legislation that replaced the invalidated discretionary licensing standards with different, but still subjective, carry license requirements, including character references, an in-person interview of the applicant with the licensing officer/designee, and disclosure of the applicant’s “list of former and current social media accounts for the last three years.” In addition, licensing officers were authorized to “request any additional information they deem appropriate” during the licensing process, regardless of the specific legislated requirements.

In the same spirit of open defiance of the Constitution and the nation’s highest Court, government officials elsewhere have worked to stymie the implementation of the Bruen decision, treating the Second Amendment as an optional responsibility, as discretionary as the firearm permit schemes the Bruen Court put a stop to. 

In California (another of the “may-issue” states), the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has allegedly moved from “stubbornly refusing” to grant carry concealed weapons (CCW) permits to tortoise-on-tranquilizers application processing speed.

According to the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), prior to Bruen the department had issued only four active carry concealed weapons permits, despite the City’s population being close to 4 million people. After that rate became legally unsustainable due to the Supreme Court ruling, the “wait times for a CCW permit with LAPD have ballooned, and LAPD has gone back to not accepting applications when they are submitted so they can falsely claim faster processing times. Applicants [are] being told in emails that they can expect to wait 18-22 months” for a decision, despite California law requiring that such permits be processed within 120 days. Some applicants report that the “LAPD is ‘gaming’ this statutory deadline by putting applicants on a waiting list and not treating their application as ‘accepted’ until LAPD decides to receive it,” even though the 120-day time starts running from the date the applicant submits the application. CCW renewals, also, appear to be handled less than expeditiously.

Attorneys on behalf of the CRPA have since placed the City of Los Angeles and the LAPD on notice (here and here) that these excessive wait times are not only a violation of California law but an unequivocal violation of the Second Amendment, and that a federal civil rights lawsuit may follow “should the LAPD refuse to make firm commitments to expeditiously resolve its CCW permit application backlog.” Bruen, the lawyers observe, “was decided almost three years ago, meaning LAPD has had more than sufficient time to set up a process to handle CCW applications.” Wait times “have only gotten worse since Bruen,” implying that “the City is not devoting sufficient resources to CCW permit processing despite now having years to assess its budgetary and staffing needs to fulfill Bruen’s mandate.”

If the impediment is state law “making it impossible for LAPD to respect the Second Amendment by issuing CCW permits in a reasonable timeframe, then the cumbersome requirements of California law must make way for the Second Amendment, and not the other way around,” with the CRPA suggesting that the LAPD consider lobbying for legislative changes to make processing CCW permits less unnecessarily burdensome and time-consuming –by removing requirements like personal references and in-person interviews, for instance, or doubling the time for which a permit is valid to four years.

A CRPA blog post at the end of April suggests that patience is running thin, and “[i]f the LAPD doesn’t adopt changes quickly, a lawsuit is inevitable.”

The CRPA has already succeeded in litigation challenging the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department’s CCW permit delays. That outcome attracted the attention of U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, who announced in a March 27 news release that the federal Department of Justice was launching an investigation of the sheriff’s department to determine whether it is resisting pro-Second Amendment caselaw by “engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights” through excessively long processing times or otherwise.

In language that should concern the City of Los Angeles and the LAPD, the news release warns that the investigation “will be the first of many similar investigations, lawsuits, or other actions involving other localities in California, the State of California itself, and any other states or localities that insist on unduly burdening, or effectively denying, the Second Amendment rights of their ordinary, law-abiding citizens.”

In the most recent example of the new Trump administration’s commitment to actively protecting and enforcing the Second Amendment in the same way as other fundamental constitutional rights, Attorney General Bondi has fired off a letter to Pennsylvania Attorney General David Sunday and Sean P. Kilkenny, the Montgomery County Sheriff (who is also the president of the Pennsylvania Sheriffs Association), regarding reports that sheriffs are “not properly issuing carry licenses on a nondiscretionary, nondiscriminatory basis” to out-of-state residents.

In a “clear violation of Pennsylvania law, which expressly contemplates that both resident and nonresident firearm licenses will be processed on a ‘shall issue’ basis,” the letter alleges that many county sheriffs have categorically refused to issue nonresident carry licenses, a contravention with no legal justification and no statutory remedy.

As one example, the Philadelphia’s Police Department website features a pop-up notice that reads, in part, that the “Philadelphia Police Department is not issuing License to Carry to Out of State Applicants. If you submit an application, it will be withdrawn and application cost will be refunded minus Permitium Fees…” (as in the original); another webpage on carry permits, by the Philadelphia PD Gun Permit Unit, confirms “[w]e only process applications from Philadelphia residents.”  

As Ms. Bondi’s letter points out, this not only disregards Pennsylvania law and the Second Amendment but, because “the categorical refusal to issue licenses specifically targets out-of-state residents, these policies are also suspect under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which guarantees that ‘[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.’”   

Although the letter requests the officials’ cooperation in resolving the situation promptly, without the need for litigation, it includes a warning that the Department of Justice “will be monitoring the situation closely.”

What happens next may depend on just how much taxpayer money intransigent government officials are willing to publicly squander to defend unconstitutional policies and practices, simply to justify their hostility to what the Second Amendment requires. It is, ultimately, a corner these bureaucrats have painted themselves into. To borrow the words of the CRPA attorneys, if the government insists on a person obtaining a permit before the constitutional right to carry may be exercised, the government cannot also complain that the unnecessarily convoluted permit process it set up is “too burdensome to process permit applications” in the statutorily-mandated timeframe or otherwise. Your NRA-ILA will keep you posted on further developments.

TRENDING NOW
North Carolina: Update on Permitless Carry

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

North Carolina: Update on Permitless Carry

Last week the North Carolina General Assembly briefly returned from recess and re-referred Senate Bill 50, Freedom to Carry NC, to the House Rules Committee.

Federal Court Strikes Down Biden Administration’s “Engaged in the Business” Rule in NRA Case

Thursday, October 2, 2025

Federal Court Strikes Down Biden Administration’s “Engaged in the Business” Rule in NRA Case

Yesterday, in Butler v. Bondi, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives exceeded its statutory authority by issuing its 2024 Final Rule expanding ...

First Affirmative Lawsuit in Support of Gun Owners Filed by Trump’s DOJ

News  

Monday, October 6, 2025

First Affirmative Lawsuit in Support of Gun Owners Filed by Trump’s DOJ

California officials’ egregious foot-dragging over the issuance of carry permits has finally attracted the ire of the federal Department of Justice (DOJ). 

President Trump’s GOP Leads Polling on Crime and Guns, To No Surprise

News  

Monday, October 6, 2025

President Trump’s GOP Leads Polling on Crime and Guns, To No Surprise

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed that Americans know the President Donald Trump-led Republican Party has a better plan than their Democratic Party opponents on crime and gun control.

NRA Files Amicus Brief in Fifth Circuit Case Challenging the Federal Switchblade Act

Friday, October 3, 2025

NRA Files Amicus Brief in Fifth Circuit Case Challenging the Federal Switchblade Act

Yesterday, the National Rifle Association filed an amicus brief in Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bondi, urging the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas’s decision upholding the Federal ...

Trump Administration Repeals Biden Era Firearms Export Crackdown

News  

Monday, October 6, 2025

Trump Administration Repeals Biden Era Firearms Export Crackdown

Last Monday, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) at the U.S. Department of Commerce published a final rule that reversed a crackdown on the commercial export of firearms from the U.S. to other countries.

Trust in Mass Media Craters to New Lows, in Single Digits With Republicans

News  

Monday, October 6, 2025

Trust in Mass Media Craters to New Lows, in Single Digits With Republicans

There’s an old saying that rings especially true to Second Amendment supporters: If you don’t read the news, you’re uninformed.

Alphabet Eases the Reins on Censorship; Will Gun Content Eventually Benefit?

News  

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

Alphabet Eases the Reins on Censorship; Will Gun Content Eventually Benefit?

With the free speech debate recently co-opted by one TV host’s use of false and incendiary remarks about his political opponents, it might have been easy to miss another important First Amendment story last week. 

Canada’s Public Safety Minister on Gun Ban & Confiscation: “Don’t Ask Me to Explain the Logic”

News  

Monday, September 29, 2025

Canada’s Public Safety Minister on Gun Ban & Confiscation: “Don’t Ask Me to Explain the Logic”

There have been multiple developments on the Canadian gun grab and ban in the last few days, but the most astounding has got to be a leaked bombshell recording of the Liberal Public Safety Minister, ...

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Hawaii’s Private Property Default Carry Ban

Friday, October 3, 2025

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to Hawaii’s Private Property Default Carry Ban

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii’s law forbidding carry on private property open to the public (such as restaurants, gas stations, and grocery stores) ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.