How To: Need community help

[Dvrjon]

Thank you very much! Will hold off on emailing the letter, and just requested the records, just like you said.

"Any and all records which detail the analysis and justification for the City’s recent increase in CCW application fees, including any presentations of these discrete costs to assist members of the City Council in authorizing these fees"

I edited another item in at the beginning. Contact the clerk to find the agenda…they’re online, but not searchable. The clerk should be able to locate the issues.

 

[No_glonks]

I edited another item in at the beginning. Contact the clerk to find the agenda…they’re online, but not searchable. The clerk should be able to locate the issues.

Thank you very much, I'll give city clerk a call.

 

[No_glonks]

As expected - phone call wasn't answered, email city clerk directly

"Hello Dr. Abajian,
I need help identifying the city council meeting minutes which contain agenda items for the CCW fees. Can you please direct me to those online files?

Thank you"

Thanks a lot!!!
You just did more than CRPA, SAF and NRA combined.

I edited another item in at the beginning. Contact the clerk to find the agenda…they’re online, but not searchable. The clerk should be able to locate the issues.

 

[ikeo1]

As expected - phone call wasn't answered, email city clerk directly

"Hello Dr. Abajian,
I need help identifying the city council meeting minutes which contain agenda items for the CCW fees. Can you please direct me to those online files?

Thank you"

Thanks a lot!!!
You just did more than CRPA, SAF and NRA combined.

This needs to be you…

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[No_glonks]

This needs to be you…

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Halloween stores can’t open soon enough

 

[No_glonks]

I edited another item in at the beginning. Contact the clerk to find the agenda…they’re online, but not searchable. The clerk should be able to locate the issues.

City Clerk responded with the youtube link to city council meeting, there were no detailed discussion about any particular fees. Neither justifications for increase of any city fees. Meeting minutes are not available. I worked a little bit more on the letter

 

[Dvrjon]

City Clerk responded with the youtube link to city council meeting, there were no detailed discussion about any particular fees. Neither justifications for increase of any city fees. Meeting minutes are not available. I worked a little bit more on the letter, that's my final version. Send it?

Dear Chief of Police and Members of the Glendale City Council:

I am writing to ask the City to review and provide a detailed cost justification for Glendale's recent increase in CCW licensing fees—from $100 to $1,078 for an initial application and from $25 to $826 for a renewal. These amounts do not include other required expenses such as training, Live Scan/fingerprinting, and psychological evaluation, which applicants pay separately.

For comparison, looking only at fees charged by the local licensing agency and excluding separate DOJ/Live Scan costs, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department charges $216 for an initial standard CCW license and $86 for a renewal, while the Riverside County Sheriff's Office charges $100 for an initial license and $25 for a renewal. Glendale's fees are several times higher than those charged by two major Southern California law-enforcement agencies operating under the same state law.

California Penal Code § 26190 limits local CCW fees to the “reasonable costs” of processing an application, issuing a license, and enforcing the license. It specifically states that “in no case shall the local fees exceed the reasonable costs to the licensing authority.”

There is also a constitutional concern. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the U.S. The Supreme Court noted that even shall-issue licensing systems could face constitutional challenges if, for example, “lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”

I understand that Glendale has the right to recover the legitimate costs of running its CCW program. What I am asking is how processing an initial application now costs the City $1,078 and, especially, how processing a renewal costs $826. Considering what neighboring agencies charge for the same type of licensing, I believe Glendale residents deserve to see the actual cost calculations behind these amounts.

I respectfully ask the Glendale Police Department and City Council to review these fees, provide the detailed calculations used to determine the $1,078 initial and $826 renewal fees, and reduce any portion that cannot be justified as a reasonable cost under Penal Code § 26190.

As a Glendale resident and taxpayer, I am also concerned about the possibility of the City having to spend taxpayer money defending these fees in court. The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) are currently plaintiffs in Blank v. Santa Clara County, a federal civil-rights lawsuit challenging Santa Clara County's CCW licensing fees.

There is also a recent example involving the federal government. On September 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department over unreasonable delays in processing CCW applications, alleging that those delays violated applicants' Second Amendment rights. The lawsuit was settled on August 13, 2026, after LASD substantially reduced its processing times. I understand that the LASD case was about delays rather than fees, but it shows that unreasonable burdens in the CCW licensing process can result in federal action.

I do not want to see Glendale taxpayers paying to defend a lawsuit over something that can be reviewed and addressed now.

I am not arguing that CCW licenses should be free or that the City should absorb the legitimate cost of processing them. I am simply asking the City to show how these unusually high fees were calculated and make sure they comply with state law.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

I can’t see it. But, wait for the PRA request. And BS on the lack of minutes and information from the meeting.

 

[Dvrjon]

1. Address the letter to the Chief of Police and, at the bottom, copy the Members of the City Council by name as well as the City Manager. This info is on the 'net. You're asking about the Chief's budget. The Chief works for the City Manager, who does the recruitment/hiring and budget development. But the Chief (or the former Assistant Chief...who is now the Chief) put forth the budget proposal or was told to do so.

• Chief of Police Robert William
• Ardy Kassakhian: Mayor (Term ends 2028)
• Dan Brotman: Councilmember (Term ends 2030)
• Elen Asatryan: Councilmember (Term ends 2030)
• Vartan Gharpetian: Councilmember (Term ends 2028)
• Alek Bartrosouf: Councilmember (Term ends 2030)
• Roubik Golanian: City Manager

2. Offer the Chief congratulations on his recent promotion to the position. You know he's spent his career in service to your city and you are pleased his efforts have been acknowledged and rewarded. Then start your letter.

3. Ditch the diatribe about legal proceedings and Penal Codes...they know all of this stuff, and the recitation here obscures your interests. The Signal gets lost in the Noise. Save it for your 3 minutes before the Council.

4. Wait for the PRA return. It may help or hinder, but it's important to know the answer before you confront these folks.

Dear Chief of Police and Members of the Glendale City Council:

I am writing to ask the City to review and provide a detailed cost justification for Glendale's recent increase in CCW licensing fees—from $100 to $1,078 for an initial application and from $25 to $826 for a renewal. These amounts do not include other required expenses such as training, Live Scan/fingerprinting, and psychological evaluation, which applicants pay separately.

For comparison, looking only at fees charged by the local licensing agency and excluding separate DOJ/Live Scan costs, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department charges $216 for an initial standard CCW license and $86 for a renewal, while the Riverside County Sheriff's Office charges $100 for an initial license and $25 for a renewal. Glendale's fees are several times higher than those charged by two major Southern California law-enforcement agencies operating under the same state law.

California Penal Code § 26190 limits local CCW fees to the “reasonable costs” of processing an application, issuing a license, and enforcing the license. It specifically states that “in no case shall the local fees exceed the reasonable costs to the licensing authority.”

There is also a constitutional concern. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the U.S. The Supreme Court noted that even shall-issue licensing systems could face constitutional challenges if, for example, “lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”

I understand that Glendale has the right to recover the legitimate costs of running its CCW program. What I am asking is how processing an initial application now costs the City $1,078 and, especially, how processing a renewal costs $826. Considering what neighboring agencies charge for the same type of licensing, I believe Glendale residents deserve to see the actual cost calculations behind these amounts.

I respectfully ask the Glendale Police Department and City Council to review these fees, provide the detailed calculations used to determine the $1,078 initial and $826 renewal fees, and reduce any portion that cannot be justified as a reasonable cost under Penal Code § 26190.

As a Glendale resident and taxpayer, I am also concerned about the possibility of the City having to spend taxpayer money defending these fees in court. The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) are currently plaintiffs in Blank v. Santa Clara County, a federal civil-rights lawsuit challenging Santa Clara County's CCW licensing fees.

There is also a recent example involving the federal government. On September 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department over unreasonable delays in processing CCW applications, alleging that those delays violated applicants' Second Amendment rights. The lawsuit was settled on August 13, 2026, after LASD substantially reduced its processing times. I understand that the LASD case was about delays rather than fees, but it shows that unreasonable burdens in the CCW licensing process can result in federal action.

I do not want to see Glendale taxpayers paying to defend a lawsuit over something that can be reviewed and addressed now.

I am not arguing that CCW licenses should be free or that the City should absorb the legitimate cost of processing them. I am simply asking the City to show how these unusually high fees were calculated and make sure they comply with state law.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

 

[No_glonks]

1. Address the letter to the Chief of Police and, at the bottom, copy the Members of the City Council by name as well as the City Manager. This info is on the 'net. You're asking about the Chief's budget. The Chief works for the City Manager, who does the recruitment/hiring and budget development. But the Chief (or the former Assistant Chief...who is now the Chief) put forth the budget proposal or was told to do so.

• Chief of Police Robert William
• Ardy Kassakhian: Mayor (Term ends 2028)
• Dan Brotman: Councilmember (Term ends 2030)
• Elen Asatryan: Councilmember (Term ends 2030)
• Vartan Gharpetian: Councilmember (Term ends 2028)
• Alek Bartrosouf: Councilmember (Term ends 2030)
• Roubik Golanian: City Manager

2. Offer the Chief congratulations on his recent promotion to the position. You know he's spent his career in service to your city and you are pleased his efforts have been acknowledged and rewarded. Then start your letter.

3. Ditch the diatribe about legal proceedings and Penal Codes...they know all of this stuff, and the recitation here obscures your interests. The Signal gets lost in the Noise. Save it for your 3 minutes before the Council.

4. Wait for the PRA return. It may help or hinder, but it's important to know the answer before you confront these folks.

Thank you, appreciate all the help!

 

[Dvrjon]

Thank you, appreciate all the help!

Just remember, you’re going against an entrenched bureaucracy which has already committed to an action. It’s almost impossible to get them to provide you with information which might unsettle that decision. Good luck to you.

 

[No_glonks]

Just remember, you’re going against an entrenched bureaucracy which has already committed to an action. It’s almost impossible to get them to provide you with information which might unsettle that decision. Good luck to you.

I figured it will go nowhere, and I don't think I personally can be a plaintiff as I got my renewal less than two weeks ago for $25.
But if someone above office assistant at CRPA or NRA will ever get the wind, I already had taken first step

 

[MarkH]

Thank you very much! Will hold off on emailing the letter, and just requested the records, just like you said.

"Any and all records which detail the analysis and justification for the City’s recent increase in CCW application fees, including any presentations of these discrete costs to assist members of the City Council in authorizing these fees"

I’m both a lawyer and a city councilmember. I think the long version is fine. It makes all the right arguments. It should rattle their cage a bit! Copy to all individual Glendale councilmembers, and to the Glendale City Attorney.

 

[No_glonks]

I’m both a lawyer and a city councilmember. I think the long version is fine. It makes all the right arguments. It should rattle their cage a bit! Copy to all individual Glendale councilmembers, and to the Glendale City Attorney.

Thank you!

 

[Dvrjon]

As a long-time, career bureaucrat, I can tell you that the first requirement of the agency is to survive. That means your first inquiry gets a “no”. The lawyers will edit/write it.

That’s why I counsel folks to hold something back. If you dump everything now, when you get to the Council for your 3 minutes, the bureaucrats will be able to tell the board, “That’s already been addressed,” and you’re done.

Save your statutory citations and other noise for the town hall meeting when you can tell the Council that the bureaucrats have been non-responsive to your simple request…They won’t provide a simple accounting of fee development. Your concern is the legal jeopardy into which this may place the city. The lawyers in the room will not flinch, but this is the only time you will get to call everybody out as stonewalling you on a simple budget issue.

However, if you are going to shoot your wad all at one time in your letter, you should include of Blank v Santa Clara County filed by SAF. Initial issuance costs exceed $2k and require shrink evaluation and other onerous elements.

As of this week, the suit is now being amended to allow the AG to intervene on the part of the County for the limited purpose of defending the constitutionality of California Penal Code section 26190, subdivisions (b)(1) and (e)(1). (That’s good for your city, so be aware that it’s a double-edged sword.)

The County asked for this (page 4):


The AG wants in.



Remember, this is not legal advice, this is an opinion framed from over 30 years of bureaucratic knife fights and at the federal, and state Agency, Gubernatorial, and elected Board support activities.

Also, the city attorneys…if they’re worth their degree (and most are)… have taken all of the legal issues into consideration in developing this policy. They aren’t incompetent and they aren’t blind.

Eventually, what all of this means is the Council will probably chill until the courts rule, so I’d advise you to stay off of the Court issues until you stand in front of them. Then, give them a handout with the details…when you speak, don’t deep dive….stay on the wave tops.

I believe that if you hit the stuff now the lawyers will quash your arguments and the Council will take it into executive session due to potential litigation and the issue will be dead to the public. The sooner you show your hand, the sooner they can redeal and shut down the game.

It’ll be years before they find out whether they can keep the money or if they have to reimburse the atrocious fees, so they won’t care today.

(The can, when kicked, continues to roll down the road). And the bureaucracy survives.

My apologies for the cynicism, but if your original letter crossed my desk back in the day, it would have been quietly dealt with.

 

[No_glonks]

@Dvrjon and @MarkH
Gents, really appreciate your input

 

[No_glonks]

Apparently City of Glendale isn't first time offender. Just found this out

CRPA & GOC File "Sensitive Places" Lawsuit - CRPA

California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and Gun Owners of California (GOC) are joining forces...

crpa.org

I got my CCW in 2024, after settlement

 

[Dvrjon]

Apparently City of Glendale isn't first time offender. Just found this out

CRPA & GOC File "Sensitive Places" Lawsuit - CRPA

California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and Gun Owners of California (GOC) are joining forces...

crpa.org

I got my CCW in 2024, after settlement

2023…Sensitive places for CCW. The case was dismissed upon failure of SB 918 to pass. The 918 provisions later appeared in and approved as SB 2.

 

[No_glonks]

2023…Sensitive places for CCW. The case was dismissed upon failure of SB 919 to pass. The 918 provisions later appeared in and approved as SB 2.

didn't know that. Interesting that it was filed against Glendale, not the state

 

[No_glonks]

2023…Sensitive places for CCW. The case was dismissed upon failure of SB 919 to pass. The 918 provisions later appeared in and approved as SB 2.

Received email from city regarding records



Good afternoon,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your California Public Records Act (CPRA) request. Your request has been forwarded to appropriate city departments and a search for responsive documents is currently underway. Records identified as responsive to your request will be reviewed, and made available for your access, in accordance with relevant law and city policy.

The identification and collection of potentially responsive records is only the first step in the CPRA response process. The collected records must be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office to ensure that they are in fact responsive to your request and to assess whether any legal privileges or exemptions from disclosure are applicable and whether redactions may be required to protect individuals' rights to privacy. Please also bear in mind that we are concurrently fulfilling numerous other requests, many of which were received before yours and that we generally process requests in the order in which they are received. The city works diligently to produce all responsive records promptly.

Although the requested records have not yet been fully identified, based on the terms of the request, we have made a preliminary determination that the request likely does seek disclosable records within the possession of the city. This office will provide you with a status update after the requested records have been thoroughly reviewed.



Thank you,

 

[ikeo1]

Received email from city regarding records



Good afternoon,

This is to acknowledge receipt of your California Public Records Act (CPRA) request. Your request has been forwarded to appropriate city departments and a search for responsive documents is currently underway. Records identified as responsive to your request will be reviewed, and made available for your access, in accordance with relevant law and city policy.

The identification and collection of potentially responsive records is only the first step in the CPRA response process. The collected records must be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office to ensure that they are in fact responsive to your request and to assess whether any legal privileges or exemptions from disclosure are applicable and whether redactions may be required to protect individuals' rights to privacy. Please also bear in mind that we are concurrently fulfilling numerous other requests, many of which were received before yours and that we generally process requests in the order in which they are received. The city works diligently to produce all responsive records promptly.

Although the requested records have not yet been fully identified, based on the terms of the request, we have made a preliminary determination that the request likely does seek disclosable records within the possession of the city. This office will provide you with a status update after the requested records have been thoroughly reviewed.



Thank you,

Thanks for keeping us up to date and following along. This is one, I enjoy following to learn the process. You're paving the way for others who want to learn how to do this and what to expect.