A $1,000 Fee for a Constitutional Right? Why the DOJ Is Taking Glendale to Court

The Justice Department on Monday sued the city of Glendale, California, in federal court in Los Angeles, accusing the city of pricing ordinary residents out of their right to carry a firearm for self-defense ^[2]. At the center of the case is a concealed carry license fee that climbed from $100 in the prior fiscal year to $1,078 for a first-time applicant, with renewals now set at $826 ^[2][3].

Federal lawyers estimate that once fingerprinting, mandatory training and a psychological evaluation are added, a new license costs about $2,000 and a renewal about $1,300 ^[2][3]. The Daily Caller News Foundation put the full price of a first license at no less than $2,106, and the department calculated that renewal costs alone work out to roughly $54 a month, a sum it contrasted with a $1.50 voting payment the Supreme Court once struck down ^[1].

The Case for the City

Glendale did not respond to requests for comment from outlets reporting the suit ^[1][2][3]. Its strongest defense is written into state law. California's SB 2, signed in September 2023, directs city and county licensing authorities to charge a fee equal to the reasonable cost of processing an application, issuing the license and enforcing it, not counting fingerprinting and training ^[5].

The same law added work for local police. Applicants must sit for an in-person interview, and licensing officials must interview at least three character references ^[5]. The bill's findings cite the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen ruling for the point that the Second Amendment is not a regulatory straitjacket ^[5]. Glendale can argue it is simply recovering the cost of a process Sacramento ordered.

What the Constitution and the Court Say

That argument runs straight into the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, issued June 23, 2022 ^[4]. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Clarence Thomas struck down New York's proper-cause standard, under which officials decided whether an applicant had a special need to carry ^[4].

In footnote 9, the Court said it was not questioning the 43 states with shall-issue systems, which rely on narrow, objective standards such as background checks and safety courses rather than an official's judgment ^[4]. But the justices added a warning. Because any permitting system can be bent toward abusive ends, they left the door open to challenges where "lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees" keep ordinary citizens from carrying in public ^[4].

A fee that rose more than tenfold from one fiscal year to the next fits that description. Even SB 2 sets a ceiling, declaring that "In no case shall the local fees exceed the reasonable costs" to the licensing authority ^[5]. Nearby agencies suggest what reasonable looks like: the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department charges about $175 for a first-time permit, and the Los Angeles Police Department about $325 before fingerprinting and training ^[2]. The California Rifle & Pistol Association told Glendale in August that its fees were several times what bigger jurisdictions charge ^[3].

Cost is not the only problem. The complaint alleges Glendale runs what amounts to a may-issue process, in which officials rely on their own judgment rather than objective criteria ^[2]. According to Bearing Arms, it says requiring psychological testing of every applicant invites open-ended discretion, which the department called "constitutionally problematic," and that no historical tradition supports such exams before carrying ^[6]. State law calls for a psychological assessment at renewal only when there is compelling evidence of a public safety concern ^[5], yet Bearing Arms reports the city appears to require one of everyone renewing ^[6].

Related COP31 Says the World Must Ditch Fossil Fuels Faster. The Energy Facts Tell a Different Story.

Common sense points the same way. Americans would never accept a four-figure charge to attend worship, write a letter to the editor or cast a ballot. A right that only the comfortable can afford stops working as a right for the single mother, the night-shift worker or the retiree who most needs to protect a family.

Who Is Pushing Back and What Comes Next

Jesus Osete, the acting assistant attorney general for civil rights, said the city "cannot impose unreasonable fees and unbridled discretion" that undermine a core constitutional right ^[3]. The suit follows an Oct. 28 letter from then-division head Harmeet Dhillon to Glendale's mayor, police chief and city attorney ^[2], which gave the city until Nov. 4 to seek settlement talks and set conditions including an end to the higher fees and may-issue practices and a court-enforceable consent decree ^[3].

Glendale is not alone. The department sued San Jose on Sept. 16 over a licensing fee of roughly $1,591, and on Sept. 24 sued Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul over gun purchase waits that often exceed the state's 30-day limit ^[3]. The rifle association wrote to Glendale's interim police chief and city attorney on Aug. 27 ^[3].

No hearing date has been reported ^[2]. Bearing Arms noted that a federal judge recently dismissed the department's suit against Montgomery County, Maryland, ruling it had exceeded its authority under the federal pattern-or-practice law, a precedent Glendale could lean on in seeking dismissal ^[6]. The case will test whether Bruen's warning about exorbitant fees means what it says.