admin
The Justice Department sued the City of Glendale on November 9, accusing local officials of effectively putting the Second Amendment behind a pricey paywall. The federal complaint challenges Glendale’s concealed‑carry permitting regime for charging what the DOJ calls exorbitant fees and relying on vague, discretionary vetting that shuts ordinary people out of a constitutional right.
What the DOJ says about Glendale’s fees and rules
The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division says Glendale’s system produces total initial costs between $1,971 and $2,106 and renewal costs between $1,271 and $1,406 every two years. The city’s published application fee is $1,078 (renewal $826), but applicants also must pay for fingerprinting, training, and psychological testing. Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Jesus Osete called those kinds of fees and vague standards a threat to “law‑abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms,” and First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli warned that “exorbitant government fees” clash with the Constitution.
Bruen matters — and not in Glendale’s favor
The lawsuit leans on the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which allows narrow, objective licensing but expressly warns that “lengthy delays or exorbitant fees” can deny people the right to carry. Glendale’s published policy requires reference interviews, psychological exams, department‑approved training, and social‑media review — and it calls fees nonrefundable if an application is denied. That mixture of high out‑of‑pocket costs and discretionary screening is exactly the kind of conduct Bruen said courts should scrutinize.
Glendale’s explanation won’t pass the smell test
The city says fees reflect “actual processing costs,” but taxpayers and applicants get no itemized bill: no staff‑hour math, no breakdown of what a psychological evaluation costs the city, no proof that the department can’t streamline. If your budget runs to rent and groceries, you don’t have a spare $2,100 to prove your rights. The DOJ even sent a pre‑suit warning and a short chance to negotiate; when the city didn’t fix the problem, the federal government filed suit. That’s not grandstanding — it’s the next step in enforcing a plain constitutional limit.
What to watch next and why conservatives should care
Keep an eye on the federal docket for emergency injunction filings and Glendale’s response. The court could halt enforcement, force fee reductions, or demand published, objective standards for who gets a permit. This case is part of a pattern: the DOJ has already challenged other California cities for similar practices. Conservatives who believe in the Second Amendment should want a right that is real for everyone, not only the comfortably well‑heeled. If constitutional rights require a fat bank account, they aren’t rights at all—and Glendale now has to explain why it thinks otherwise.
