120 Days, Not Years: SAF Settles Its LASD Lawsuit After the Department Says It Now Meets California’s Concealed Carry Deadline

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

LOS ANGELES, CA — The Second Amendment Foundation announced on August 6, 2026 a settlement resolving the remaining claims in California Rifle and Pistol Association v. LASD, its challenge to how the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department handled concealed carry weapon permit applications. According to SAF, the settlement follows the department’s representation that it is now processing CCW applications within the 120-day period required by California permit law.

SAF filed the case with the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and several individual plaintiffs. It was not a single-issue lawsuit. It went after a stack of separate obstacles at once: multi-year processing delays, the total exclusion of nonresidents from the licensing system, automatic eligibility bans triggered by restraining orders, and the cumulative cost of getting a permit at all.

The nonresident piece produced what SAF calls the first ruling in the country confirming that the right to carry does not stop at state lines. The court issued a preliminary injunction, meaning an order that forces a change while the case is still being litigated rather than after final judgment, requiring California to begin issuing CCW permits to qualified nonresidents. SAF says that relief was later made permanent when the Legislature passed AB 1078, which essentially codified the terms of the injunction. That matters to anyone who travels armed, because recognition of an out-of-state permit and the ability to apply for a local one are two different doors, and my concealed carry reciprocity maps show how few of them California has ever opened.

AB 1078, authored by Assemblymember Marc Berman, was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on October 10, 2025 as Chapter 570. The bill amends a long list of Penal Code sections, including 26150 and 26155, the statutes that govern who may issue a carry license and under what conditions. Reading the enrolled text, one provision lines up directly with another of SAF’s claimed wins: the bill exempts from the licensing prohibition applicants who were previously subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other court order that was issued without notice and an opportunity to be heard. In practical terms, a temporary order entered before you ever got to speak, and later dissolved, no longer functions as an automatic bar.

On the delays themselves, SAF says a preliminary injunction against LASD’s multi-year wait times, combined with pressure from a parallel U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit filed after this case, led the department to bring its processing times into compliance with state law. That is the entire point of a statutory deadline. A 120-day requirement that an agency can quietly ignore for two or three years is not a shall-issue system, it is a permit denial with extra steps.

More from USA Carry:

SAF also points to reforms in the City of La Verne, which subsidized its psychological examination requirement and modestly reduced related fees after being sued over the total cost of obtaining a permit. The organization says the broader fight over high fees continues in its lawsuit against Santa Clara.

“This case was ambitious from the start, tackling several different obstacles Californians and visitors faced when trying to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “While we settled the remaining claims against LASD once they demonstrated compliance with the statutory timelines, the broader impact of the litigation is clear: California residents and nonresidents alike now have more Second Amendment freedoms thanks to the diligent work of SAF and its partners. We will continue monitoring to ensure these gains are not rolled back.”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut framed the result as leverage rather than a finish line. “Lawmakers and officials in California have long treated the Second Amendment as a second-class right, and this settlement proves we will not stop until those who wish to trample our constitutional rights are held accountable,” he said. “Litigation remains one of the most effective tools we have to force compliance with the Constitution when government agencies refuse to do so on their own.” Kraut said the work to secure full recognition of the right to carry, including true interstate reciprocity, continues.

Two caveats belong on the record. The settlement remains subject to final approval by the Los Angeles County Claims Board, the county body that has to sign off before the agreement is final, and the parallel Department of Justice lawsuit against LASD is not resolved by it. The terms described here come from SAF’s announcement, and no LASD statement or signed court order was available to me at the time of writing.

Legislative data provided by LegiScan (CC BY 4.0, legiscan.com).