LOS ANGELES, CA – August 13, 2026 (STL.News) The U.S. Department of Justice has settled with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in a federal lawsuit challenging lengthy delays in processing concealed carry weapon permits, ending a case the government brought over alleged violations of applicants’ Second Amendment rights.
The Justice Department announced the settlement Thursday, saying the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has agreed to bring its firearm carry permit procedures in line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision.
According to the DOJ, applicants were waiting an average of more than nine months when the federal government filed its lawsuit in September 2025. The department said LASD has since substantially reduced its processing times and is now complying with applicable statutory deadlines.
The resolution follows an unusual federal civil rights case involving the Second Amendment. When the lawsuit was filed, the Justice Department described it as its first affirmative lawsuit brought in support of gun owners seeking concealed carry permits.
DOJ challenged lengthy Los Angeles permit delays
The dispute arose after the Justice Department opened an investigation into LASD’s concealed carry permitting practices on March 27, 2025.
Federal officials said the investigation followed complaints concerning delays experienced by people applying for concealed handgun licenses. DOJ ultimately reviewed information involving thousands of applications before filing its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on September 30, 2025.
The federal complaint named the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Robert Luna, in his official capacity, as defendants.
The numbers contained in that complaint illustrated the scope of the dispute.
LASD received approximately 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses between January 2, 2024, and March 31, 2025, according to information the Sheriff’s Department provided to federal investigators.
As of May 8, 2025, DOJ alleged that only two licenses had been issued from that group and two applications had been denied. Approximately 2,768 new applications remained pending, while another 1,210 had been withdrawn for various reasons.
Federal officials alleged that applicants experienced an average delay of 281 days before LASD advanced an application to the next step, with a median delay of 372 days.
The longest recorded period cited in the complaint was approximately 1,030 days between the receipt of an application and the next step occurring or being scheduled. Some interviews were scheduled as far out as November 2026.
Those figures represented allegations made by the federal government in its complaint and should not be interpreted as separate judicial findings against LASD.
California law establishes permit deadlines.
The lawsuit focused not only on the Second Amendment but also on California’s statutory timetable for processing concealed carry applications.
According to the federal complaint, California law requires licensing authorities to provide an initial determination on a completed new-license application within 90 days.
The complaint also cited state law requiring written notice of final approval or denial within 120 days of receipt of a completed application or 30 days after receipt of specified information from the California Department of Justice, whichever is later.
DOJ argued that the lengthy delays documented during its investigation went far beyond those requirements.
The department filed its case under the Police Pattern or Practice Act, 34 U.S.C. § 12601, which authorizes the federal government to seek equitable relief involving patterns or practices by law enforcement officers that deprive people of federally protected rights.
LASD adds personnel and processing software
The dispute appears to have changed significantly after the federal lawsuit was filed.
In announcing the settlement Thursday, DOJ said LASD devoted additional resources to addressing the permit backlog, including more personnel and new processing software.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Rights Division said Sheriff Luna acknowledged the problem and committed substantial resources to reducing processing times.
“The sheriff acknowledged the problem and devoted substantial additional resources, including new processing software and additional personnel, to cutting waiting times dramatically,” Dhillon said in the DOJ announcement.
DOJ said the changes have “drastically” reduced waiting times and brought the department into compliance with statutory deadlines.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department currently provides an online system for initial and renewal concealed carry applications. Its CCW information page directs eligible applicants to the online application process.
Bruen decision changed the concealed carry landscape.
The settlement also requires that LASD’s procedures conform to the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. The decision invalidated New York’sYork’srement that applicants demonstrate a special need for carrying a firearm beyond the needs of the general public.
The ruling had nationwide implications for jurisdictions that previously gave government officials substantial discretion over whether an applicant had demonstrated sufficient cause to receive a carry license.
California subsequently continued operating a licensing system while adjusting its laws and procedures to the constitutional requirements established by the Supreme Court.
The Los Angeles case raised a different but related issue: whether excessive administrative delays could effectively prevent otherwise qualified applicants from exercising a constitutional right even when a permitting system formally allowed them to apply.
DOJ alleged that the delays amounted to a pattern or practice of depriving applicants of their Second Amendment rights.
Settlement ends significant Second Amendment case.
The agreement represents a significant conclusion to a case that marked a new direction in federal Second Amendment enforcement.
The Justice Department’s Rights Division traditionally handles cases involving constitutional and federal civil rights protections across a broad range of areas. In March 2025, the department announced its investigation into LASD’s practices, followed six months later by the federal lawsuit.
Less than a year after that complaint was filed, DOJ says the processing problems at the center of the litigation have been substantially corrected.
The department characterized Thursday’s settlement as a victory for Los Angeles County residents and Second Amendment rights.
For concealed carry applicants, the most immediate significance is practical. If LASD continues meeting California’s processing deadlines, residents seeking permits should no longer face the extraordinary waiting periods described in the federal government’s complaint.
The settlement does not mean every applicant is entitled to receive a concealed carry permit. Applicants remain subject to California’s eligibility, investigation, training, and other lawful licensing requirements. The central issue in the federal case was whether qualified applicants were being subjected to delays that effectively prevented timely consideration of their applications.
LASD remains responsible for administering the concealed carry licensing process within its jurisdiction. At the same time, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division continues to accept complaints from current or prospective gun owners who believe a state or local government has infringed their right to keep or bear arms.
The settlement closes a federal lawsuit that began with allegations of waits measured in months — and, in some cases, years — and concludes with DOJ saying the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has brought its processing times back within the deadlines established by law.
Sources: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division; federal complaint in United States of America v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Robert Luna, Case No. 2:25-cv-09323; U.S. Supreme Court; Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
