Even as the majority of states embrace constitutional carry (29 so far), California continues to make it more difficult for its responsible residents to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense. Not only is the state’s concealed weapons (CCW) permit law already more complicated and burdensome than those in other states, but some localities’ implementation of the law (or lack of implementation, to be more precise) has raised allegations of unconstitutional violations of California law and the Second Amendment.
The Los Angeles, California, Police Department (LAPD) is allegedly advising applicants for CCW permits that a lack of resources means an expected processing time of around 18-22 months, even though California law mandates that permits be approved or denied within 120 days. The LAPD, it is claimed, is even manipulating the 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 period starts as soon as the application is submitted. Given that the term of a permit, once granted, is only two years, the outcome is a ridiculous situation where the process takes almost as long as the permit is good for. CCW holders needing to renew are also kept waiting, and stand to lose their carry rights because renewal processing is liable to exceed the time in which a permit remains valid.
These processing issues are now so acute and well known that they are being cited in criminal proceedings as a defense or justification. According to the Vanguard News Group, an applicant with a pending CCW application was apprehended with three legal and registered firearms and was charged with improper firearm carry. The defense counsel argued the matter was appropriate for a judicial diversion (in which charges are dismissed after a defendant completes court-imposed conditions), pointing to the accused’s stable employment with the Coast Guard, their current CCW waitlist status, and the LAPD’s excessive and likely unconstitutional delays in issuing permits. On July 8, Los Angeles Superior Court Commissioner Brad Miles Fox denied the judicial diversion request but left the door open for further arguments on the processing delays. The denial was without prejudice so as to allow defense counsel to renew the motion next month and provide the commissioner with “additional information about the LAPD’s backlog and its effect on the accused’s case.”
There’s reason to believe the LAPD’s permitting fiasco is unlikely to improve anytime soon.
A Real Clear Investigations report released this month, Pound Foolish: After Cutting Police, Overtime Costs Strain LA’s Budget, outlines the terrible state of police staffing and resources. The number of LAPD personnel continues to drop, due, in part, to decisions motivated by the “defund the police” movement. “In fiscal year 2020-2021, a total of 631 police officers from all ranks left the department or the profession,” and top LAPD officials anticipate a loss of more than 150 officers over the next year. In May, the Los Angeles City Council, with its “defund/abolish the police” proponents, voted for new LAPD budget cuts, which will “leave the agency with just 8,400 cops, the lowest number since 1995.”
The result is the City’s taxpayers are “shelling out tens of millions more in overtime pay than they would have if the police force were fully staffed.” Last year, the LAPD “spent an all-time high of $265.5 million on overtime alone, an increase of $100 million for that line item in the city’s budget since 2019,” and “fiscal year 2025 is on track to exceed last year’s record total.” This outlay will only get worse: “More overtime is likely on the horizon as Los Angeles gears up for high-profile global events, including the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics.”
In the meantime, ordinary citizens are paying in other ways for their politicians’ policy choices. The same report quotes former Interim LAPD Chief Dominic Choi on the fallout of the understaffing crisis. Overwhelmed officers have less time for proactive policing, impacting the “ability to prevent crimes from happening,” and police response times have, in some cases, tripled or quadrupled.
The Los Angeles politicians’ alternative to cops (“a favored program of defund the police efforts”) isn’t doing much to lessen the load on law enforcement. This involves deploying unarmed teams of mental health professionals as the first responders on non-violent calls involving drug abuse, homelessness or mental health issues. A social worker with experience on these teams said the teams “usually end up calling for LAPD backup anyway” because the individuals prompting the calls threaten physical violence or “have weapons and we don’t feel safe.”
For those left in this law-enforcement lurch, there’s a now service, “Patrol,” that allows “[h]omeowners in LA” (Brentwood, Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Holmby Hills, Malibu and “more areas coming soon”) to “book off duty police officers to help protect their homes.” The ad on X refers to residents who would “rather sleep knowing someone’s looking out for you.” One of the replies notes the obvious: “I thought we were paying taxes to have on-duty police officers protect our homes.” It’s not a good look: at the same time that police understaffing makes permits inaccessible for ordinary people, the police in a private capacity are available for the wealthy.
All of this perpetuates an ugly cycle. Residents, who can no longer trust in a dependable police response and who are struggling to stay safe, resort to the state’s CCW law and their right to bear arms in self-defense. While citizens are expected to play by the rules in the permitting law, the police administering the scheme are not, giving rise to a reprehensible situation that strips away constitutional rights when they may be most needed.
Attorneys on behalf of the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) have already warned the LAPD that its excessive delays over CCW permits violate California law and the Second Amendment, and that a federal civil rights lawsuit lies ahead if the LAPD fails “to make firm commitments to expeditiously resolve its CCW permit application backlog.” The expense of defending any litigation includes the potential of damages, attorney’s fees and costs.
A federal lawsuit may likewise feature in the future, as part of the Justice Department’s investigation to determine whether Los Angeles is “engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights” through excessively long processing times or otherwise.
Freedom isn’t free, as the saying goes, but oppression carries its own hefty price tag.
More Like This From Around The NRA
