The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division put the city of Glendale, California, on notice over their $2,000 carry permit fee on Wednesday, Oct. 28.
In a post on X, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon wrote that the city “cannot impose unconstitutional $2,000 costs to obtain a concealed carry permit for lawful firearms,” adding that the Division had given it one week to fix the problem. Her closing words were “Tick tock!”
The post came with a two-page letter dated October 28, captioned “Notice of Suit: United States v. City of Glendale,” as USA Carry reported. It is not a lawsuit yet but it is an ultimatum, and the question it raises is simple: how much can a government charge for a constitutional right before the price becomes the barrier?
What was the permit carry fee in Glendale before the raise?
Glendale raised its initial application fee for a license to carry from $100 to $1,078, and its renewal fee from $50 to $826.
Add every fee and cost together, and the Division puts a new license at about $2,000 and a renewal at about $1,300. The DOJ called this “one of the most expensive CCW application schemes in the nation.”
The jump is striking. A fee that rises more than tenfold in one step is not an adjustment for inflation. It is a different kind of policy. This sort of blatant price gouging is reminiscent of one-time prescription drug CEO kingpin Martin Shkreli raising the price of the 62-year-old antiparasitic drug Daraprim by more than 5,000%, from $13.50 to $750 per pill. That little maneuver cost him jail time.
The reason he did it was simple: he had an ulterior agenda. It wasn’t about recouping costs, it was about making money off the backs of citizens. The same reasoning applies here. Glendale isn’t catching up to inflation, they have an ulterior agenda, and regular Americans are paying for it.
Bruen and Glendale: What Established
Precedent Says
The Division’s argument leans on the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Court allowed shall-issue systems, where anyone who meets objective requirements gets a permit, so long as they are not “put toward abusive ends.”
The Court’s own example of abuse was “exorbitant fees” that “deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”
That is the line Dhillon is pointing at. A permit system is supposed to verify that an applicant is qualified. A $2,000 price tag verifies something else, namely whether the applicant can afford it.
For a working person, that cost can decide whether they carry at all. As the DOJ letter puts it, keeping and bearing arms “is not a luxury enjoyed by the privileged few, it is a right enjoyed by all.”
It’s Not Only About Money
Cost is half the complaint. The letter also says parts of Glendale’s process give licensing officials “open-ended discretion,” which the Division argues turns it into the kind of “may-issue” scheme Bruen struck down. Under may-issue, officials decide who gets a permit based on their own judgment rather than objective criteria.
If that allegation holds up, it matters even more than the fees. A high price is a barrier any applicant can see. Discretion is a barrier no applicant can plan around.
The Legal Theory
Dhillon says she has authorized a complaint in federal district court. It would allege that the scheme denies ordinary citizens their Second Amendment right to public carry. It would also allege that the Glendale Police Department’s enforcement is “a pattern or practice of law enforcement misconduct” under 34 U.S.C. § 12601.
The Division is accusing the department itself of routinely enforcing an unconstitutional policy, not blaming individual officers.
This is the same approach the DOJ has used elsewhere. Earlier this month, the Division sent Minnesota a similar letter over delays in its permit-to-purchase system, also framed as a pattern or practice. Whether courts accept that theory against gun-licensing schemes is an open question, and Glendale could become another test of it.
The Off-Ramp
The DOJ isn’t demanding a lawsuit just yet. They will consider holding off “for a short period” if Glendale agrees to pre-suit negotiations.
At a minimum, the city would have to immediately stop enforcing the fees and any subjective processes, acknowledge that both are unconstitutional, and agree to a consent decree, a court-enforceable settlement permanently barring similar violations.
The deadline is 5 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday, November 4. If the Division hears nothing, the letter says the United States “may file its complaint without further notice.” The letter also directs city officials and employees to preserve all relevant records.
What to Take From This
Glendale may have explanations for its fees, such as processing costs, and a court may see them differently than DOJ does. The city’s response will say a lot about whether this ends in a settlement or a courtroom.
The underlying principle deserves attention whichever way it goes. If cities can charge whatever they like for the permit a state requires, then a right can be rationed by price without anyone passing a law against it. Bruen said that was not allowed. This is a test of whether that language has teeth.
There is no mistaking what this is. Glendale, like other more pro-gun control cities, is picking at work arounds, trying to find something that sticks. The $2,000 fee is the long phone wait time of 2A. It is the annoying AI chatbot running you in circles until you give up and decide not to return the crappy, defective product you ordered. It is a deterrent, like a nuke sitting on the books of city hall hoping you will just go away.
Unfortunately for Glendale, those who want to exercise their constitutional rights won’t just go away. Being barred from a basic principle of our country because of a fee hike is a weak challenge to the rights of everyday Americans, but when those who seek to impose their agenda are grasping at straws, they’ll snatch anything from the pile.