The Second Amendment Foundation sued the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office back in June over its concealed-carry restrictions — specifically limits on red dot sights and weapon-mounted lights for permit holders. Rather than defend the policy in court, the county folded on Thursday, agreeing to a settlement that drops the restrictions. SAF attorney Konstadinos Moros framed it as a rebuke to sheriffs inventing their own narrower list of approved guns and accessories than the Constitution allows.
The City of Contra Costa, California, has folded like a piece of origami after a lawsuit challenging its concealed carry restrictions on red dot sights and weapon-mounted lights for those holding a permit.
The Second Amendment Foundation announced on Thursday that it has reached a settlement with the city’s sheriff’s office that would drop the restrictions.
According to SAF, the Sheriff’s Office will withdraw all three prohibitions for handguns carried under a county license and will update its concealed carry website within 10 days to reflect the change. SAF was joined in the case by private citizens Andrew Moore and James Treuel, who were represented by John W. Dillon of the Dillon Law Group. The settlement agreement itself was not available, and this account rests on SAF’s description of it.
A settlement means the county agreed to change the policy rather than fight to a ruling, so no judge decided whether the bans were constitutional. The practical result for licensees is the same either way: the restrictions go away. What those restrictions did in practice was take three of the most common features on a modern carry gun and turn them into grounds for a permit problem. California already runs one of the most involved permit processes in the country, and my California concealed carry guide walks through what the state requires. Contra Costa layered its own equipment list on top of that.
“A sheriff does not get to invent a shorter list of approved handguns and accessories than the Constitution allows,” said Kostas Moros, SAF Director of Legal Research and Education and attorney of record in the case. “Even though red-dot sights, weapon lights and 1911 and 2011 pistols are in common use for lawful self-defense, Contra Costa treated them as contraband. This settlement ends that unlawful practice, and we are pleased the County saw the error if its ways and resolved these issues.”
SAF has reached a settlement agreement with the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office over policies that previously prohibited permit holders from carrying handguns equipped with red dot sights or flashlights and an outright ban on the carry of single action only 1911- and 2011-style pistols. Under the agreement, the Sheriff’s Office will withdraw its prohibitions on red-dot sights, weapon-mounted lights and semiautomatic single-action 1911 and 2011 platform pistols carried under a county CCW license. The office will update its concealed-carry website within 10 days to reflect the change. SAF was joined in SAF v. Contra Costa County by private citizens Andrew Moore and James Treuel who were represented by John W. Dillon of the Dillon Law Group. “A sheriff does not get to invent a shorter list of approved handguns and accessories than the Constitution allows,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education and attorney of record in the case Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas - shown in photo). “Even though red-dot sights, weapon lights and 1911 and 2011 pistols are in common use for lawful self-defense, Contra Costa treated them as contraband. This settlement ends that unlawful practice, and we are pleased the County saw the error if its ways and resolved these issues.”... Read the full article here: https://t.co/bkwZ1u9aRs
— SAF (@2AFDN) October 8, 2026
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut noted that “this case didn’t require the usual song and dance and provides a practical win for people who already have, or are seeking, a Contra Costa carry license.”
Contra Costa seems to be the only city that realized that fighting the lawsuit would be about as effective as fishing with a toothpick and string. The Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen would have created an insurmountable obstacle to keeping the rule alive because it requires gun laws to be consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Even further, common sense shows that the rules were silly in the first place. Having a light on your firearm can make it easier to determine whether a person is a threat while defending oneself. A red dot sight also means people can ensure accuracy if one does find themselves in a dangerous situation. These laws don’t keep anyone safe; indeed, they only empower violent criminals.
