News Analysis · October 29, 2026

DOJ Warns Glendale Over $2,000 Concealed Carry License Fees

Permanent article number: 102926069   Find another article by number

Evidence-based news report Confidence 3/5

Original article being examined

Published by: Breitbart News

Trump DOJ to Glendale, CA: Lawsuit Coming If the City Doesn't Immediately Halt $2,000 Concealed Carry License Fees — Read the exact original

Original reporting and source documents

Open the reporting and original documents used for this article. These include evidence sources; not every link is necessarily the original claim being examined.

Evidence and accountability

Archive transparency: this article has not yet completed the site's newer independent fact-audit process. Its source links are provided below. Do not treat allegations, commentary, or a rating as a legal finding.

No verified accountability finding This archive item is sourced reporting, not a finding that a claim is false or misleading.
Correction: October 29, 2026: Corrected our account of the Justice Department's October 28 Glendale notice. The November 4 deadline was for the city to indicate willingness to enter pre-suit negotiations, not a deadline to have already stopped charging fees or accepted the department's constitutional position. The department said it MAY sue if negotiations are declined; no lawsuit or court finding was announced in that notice. Clarified that the licensing-cost allegations are the department's legal position, not a judicial determination.

Corrections and clarifications

October 30, 2026: October 29, 2026: Corrected our account of the Justice Department's October 28 Glendale notice. The November 4 deadline was for the city to indicate willingness to enter pre-suit negotiations, not a deadline to have already stopped charging fees or accepted the department's constitutional position. The department said it MAY sue if negotiations are declined; no lawsuit or court finding was announced in that notice. Clarified that the licensing-cost allegations are the department's legal position, not a judicial determination.

The U.S. Department of Justice notified Glendale, California, that it has authorized a possible lawsuit over concealed-carry licensing fees and may file its complaint if the city declines to negotiate. In a letter dated October 28, 2026, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon informed city officials that the initial application fee has been raised from $100 to $1,078, with renewal fees increasing from $50 to $826. When combined with additional costs like training and psychological evaluations, the total cost for a new license reaches approximately $2,000, and renewals amount to about $1,300.

Dhillon argued that the fees could deny ordinary people their Second Amendment right to carry firearms in public, an allegation the department has not yet proved in a lawsuit. She noted that the fees and licensing process in Glendale resemble a 'may-issue' scheme, which the Supreme Court has previously deemed unconstitutional under the Bruen decision.

The Justice Department gave Glendale until 5 p.m. Eastern on November 4 to say whether it will enter pre-suit negotiations. The department says any settlement must require the city to stop enforcing the disputed fees and subjective licensing process, acknowledge that the department considers both unconstitutional, and agree to a court-enforceable consent decree. If the city does not respond, the department says it may file the complaint without further notice.

The department describes Glendale's application costs as among the highest in the country. The October 28 letter was a notice of intent to sue, not a filed lawsuit or a judicial finding that the fees violate the Constitution.

Reporting sources

Sources used for this report

These are the source links stored with this report when it was published. Open them directly to inspect the underlying reporting or primary document.

Reader action

Follow the court record

Read the filed complaint, order, or opinion and follow the docket as the case develops. Share the primary documents when explaining what the court has—and has not—decided.

This card only appears on stories where there is a concrete, lawful, worthwhile step a reader can actually take.

Comments

Read the discussion freely. Posting and voting require a verified member account. Every comment and reply is screened by AI before publication. Clear spam and abuse are blocked; only strongly cleared comments publish automatically, while uncertain drafts wait for moderator review. Civil factual disagreement alone is not grounds for rejection.

Log in to comment or join free to take part.


No comments yet. Be the first reasonably on-topic person here.