The Second Amendment Foundation announced on August 6 that it and the other plaintiffs have agreed to settle the remaining claims against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in California Rifle and Pistol Association v. LASD. The agreement is not final yet. According to the foundation's announcement, it still requires approval from the Los Angeles County Claims Board. SAF did not give a date for that review or publish the settlement text with its announcement.
The deal follows LASD's representation that it now processes concealed-carry license applications within California's statutory timetable. State law requires written approval or denial within 120 days after a completed new application, or 30 days after receipt of specified information from the California Department of Justice, whichever is later. SAF said the long waits at LASD had once extended for years. The settlement resolves the claims still pending against the sheriff's department after LASD represented that its processing times had come into compliance.
That distinction matters for applicants. The announcement reports a settlement based on LASD's current timing, not a new court ruling that eliminates California's application, training, background-check, or eligibility requirements. It also does not promise that every application will be approved within 120 days. The statutory requirement governs when the licensing authority must provide its decision, and the alternative 30-day period tied to state information can be later.
The case produced other results before this settlement. SAF said a preliminary injunction required California to begin issuing carry licenses to qualified nonresidents. California later enacted AB 1078, which was signed by the governor and chaptered on October 10, 2025 as Chapter 570. The enacted text directs sheriffs and municipal police chiefs to issue or renew licenses for non-California residents who satisfy its listed conditions.
Those conditions show why the change is not blanket interstate reciprocity. A nonresident must be at least 21, establish identity and state residence, and swear that the chosen jurisdiction is the primary California location where the person expects to travel or spend time. The applicant must complete qualifying instruction and live-fire exercises for every handgun listed. The application must identify each handgun's make, model, caliber, and serial number, and a handgun that cannot lawfully be possessed or carried in California can be denied.
AB 1078 also addresses practical barriers created by distance. If the chosen licensing authority has not approved online training, a nonresident may use an online course approved by another California licensing authority. For live fire, the authority must approve the applicant's proposed course or suggest an acceptable alternative within 75 miles of the applicant's residence. If a psychological assessment is required, the authority may permit a video assessment or approve a provider within the same 75-mile radius.
SAF identified two more outcomes from the litigation. California changed its law so a dissolved temporary restraining order issued without notice and an opportunity to be heard does not automatically create the five-year carry-license exclusion described in the prior rule. The City of La Verne also subsidized its required psychological examination and modestly reduced related fees after being sued. SAF said its separate challenge to high permit fees in Santa Clara continues, so this Los Angeles settlement does not resolve that dispute.
Proceedings that remain open
A parallel lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against LASD remains unresolved, according to SAF. That federal enforcement case is separate from the private plaintiffs' proposed settlement. The announcement also says the plaintiffs intend to monitor whether the gains are maintained, but it does not specify a compliance-reporting schedule, enforcement mechanism, allocation of costs, or other terms that may appear in the final agreement.
For Los Angeles applicants, the immediate practical point is narrow: LASD says it is operating within the state decision deadline, and the plaintiffs have agreed to end their remaining claims against the department if the county approves the settlement. Nonresidents now have a statutory application route, but they still must meet California's location, training, qualification, firearm-identification, and eligibility rules. The next concrete step is Los Angeles County Claims Board review; until approval occurs, the settlement remains pending rather than completed.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
