New Lawsuit Says LA Sheriff Turns CCW Into a Political Weapon

The long-running fight over concealed-carry permits in California crashed into federal court this week. As ABC7’s Sophie Flay reports, the U.S. Department of Justice has sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD), alleging it violated the Second Amendment by moving too slowly – so slowly as to effectively deny – the right to carry a concealed weapon. In plain terms, the Justice Department says LA’s permitting pipeline is not a pipeline at all, but a bottleneck that converts a constitutional right into paperwork purgatory.

Alleged Delays That Nullify A Right

Flay explains that the DOJ suit centers on “unreasonable delays” in processing concealed-carry (CCW) applications. She notes the complaint points to a stark data point: over a two-month span, the Sheriff’s Department approved just two applicants out of roughly 8,000. That’s not garden-variety bureaucracy; that’s near standstill. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon – speaking for DOJ in ABC7’s report – put it bluntly: “People have a constitutional right today in Los Angeles to be able to go in, get their weapon, carry it, and enjoy those rights. And they’re being denied that.”

Sheriff Luna Pushes Back, Citing Staffing And Care

Sheriff Robert Luna told Sophie Flay he’s “disappointed” by the lawsuit and says the numbers don’t add up. He insists LASD has approved “a lot more applications than the DOJ gives them credit for,” and says he has increased staffing. Luna’s defense is straightforward: the department must “do it right.” He says he does not want to issue CCWs to people “that shouldn’t have them… who have criminal histories or have mental health histories.” Caution is wise; but caution can’t morph into indefinite delay. The core legal question now is whether the department’s caution has become a constructive denial of rights.

“Pattern And Practice”: The Case As Framed By A Lawyer

Criminal defense attorney and YouTuber Robert Gouveia, Esq. waded through the complaint on his show, describing what DOJ calls a “pattern or practice” of obstruction. Reading from the filing, Gouveia highlighted allegations that LASD forces applicants to wait an average of 281 days just to begin processing, with a median delay of 372 days and a worst-case delay of 1,030 days – nearly three years – before a meaningful decision. If accurate, these numbers don’t describe a slow office; they describe a system calibrated to exhaust applicants.

The Numbers That Stopped Washington In Its Tracks

Gouveia underscores the figure that will haunt this case: between January 2024 and March 2025, LASD received 3,982 CCW applications and approved exactly two – about 0.05%. He says the department scheduled some interviews as late as November 2026, and that more than a thousand applicants simply withdrew after months of silence. The suit argues that when government “deliberately delays beyond any reasonable time frame,” the right at stake is effectively denied. I agree: rights delayed are rights denied, and a permit regime that only functions for a microscopic sliver of applicants is indistinguishable from a ban in practice.

State Deadlines, Federal Rights

Here’s where procedure collides with principle. As Gouveia notes, California law itself sets clocks: licensing authorities “must” provide an initial determination within 90 days of a completed application and written notice within 120 days. If DOJ’s timeline is correct, LASD missed its own state-law benchmarks by miles. That matters twice over: first, because state deadlines exist for a reason; second, because when state-created hurdles are used to throttle a federal right, federal courts pay attention.

Bruen Looms Over Los Angeles

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. After Bruen, California could no longer cling to “good cause” denials; the state shifted to administrative demands – training, interviews, renewals, fees. But as Gouveia reminds viewers, process cannot become prohibition by other means. Bruen changed the ground rules; the question for the court is whether LA’s system honored the ruling or tried to sidestep it with endless “pending” status.

ABC7: From Probe To Permanent Injunction

Sophie Flay says the lawsuit followed a March investigation into LASD’s delays. At that time, the Sheriff’s Department cited a major staffing crunch: a backlog of about 4,000 applications and only 14 staffers handling approvals. The DOJ’s complaint now seeks a permanent injunction forcing the department to issue concealed-carry licenses “in a timely fashion under the law.” My read: if LASD can document significant recent progress and credible fixes, a judge may impose tight timelines rather than broader oversight; if not, the court could restructure the program from the bench.

DOJ’s Unusual Posture – and The Politics Around It

Gouveia describes this as the “first affirmative lawsuit in support of gun owners filed by the U.S. Department of Justice,” and he highlights pro-Second Amendment statements from DOJ leadership, including Pam Bondi, praising the constitutional right to bear arms and warning that local officials “may not like that.” Whether you cheer or jeer, that posture is notable: the same department often targeted by gun-rights groups is now suing a large, blue-county sheriff to speed up permits. It’s a reminder that constitutional rights don’t belong to parties – they belong to people.

The Human Cost Of Waiting

Delays sound dry until you picture the reality: people who fear a violent ex, own small businesses that close late at night, or live in neighborhoods where crime is not theoretical have been told to come back next year – maybe the year after. In ABC7’s coverage, Harmeet Dhillon says Los Angeles leadership has shown “open hostility… to gun possession,” and that’s “exactly what we’re seeing.” Strong words, but the data – if borne out – supports a troubling inference: if you can’t win a legal ban, make the permission slip impossible to obtain. That’s not neutral administration; that’s policy by attrition.

Process As Punishment Is Still Punishment

Sheriff Luna’s caution about issuing permits to disqualified people is reasonable. But there’s a difference between vetting and slow-walking. If California law says 90–120 days to decide, the fix for staffing shortages isn’t to let the pile grow; it’s to move resources, streamline steps, and cut red tape that doesn’t advance safety. Gouveia noted LASD’s “interview” requirement and late-2026 scheduling. An interview can be a safeguard – or a choke point. When interviews become a queue measured in years, the process becomes the punishment. Courts have rejected that kind of government gamesmanship in other rights contexts; the Second Amendment should be no different.

What Comes Next For L.A. Gun Owners

Flay reports that Sheriff Luna says he’s added staff and approved far more applications than DOJ claims. Discovery will test those dueling narratives. If LASD can show a surge of recent approvals and compliance with the 90/120-day rule, the suit could catalyze reforms and end quickly. If not, a federal judge may order strict timelines, status reporting, and perhaps outside oversight – classic remedies when agencies turn rights into mazes. 

My opinion: whatever your politics, a right is a right. After Bruen, carry licensing is supposed to be objective, timely, and attainable for the law-abiding. If Los Angeles turned CCW into a political weapon – by delay instead of denial – this case will force a course correction, and not a moment too soon.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.