DOJ Targets San Jose Over Nation’s Highest Firearm Carry Permit Fee

The Justice Department is taking California’s gun-control regime to court, accusing San Jose officials of imposing an unconstitutional financial barrier on law-abiding Americans seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

In a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday, the DOJ challenged the City of San Jose and the San Jose Police Department over a concealed-carry application fee approaching $1,600 — reportedly the highest such charge anywhere in the United States.

Federal officials argue that the extraordinary cost places a constitutionally protected right beyond the reach of many ordinary residents.

The lawsuit alleges that San Jose’s fee structure makes it “impractical if not impossible for the average citizen to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.”

According to the Justice Department, residents must pay $1,591 to apply for authorization to lawfully carry a firearm. That total includes a $1,041 city application fee, a $250 psychological evaluation and an estimated $300 for mandatory training.

The federal complaint contrasts San Jose’s policy with the dramatically lower fees imposed in several of America’s largest cities. New York City reportedly charges $340, while applicants in Washington, D.C., pay $75. Chicago does not impose a comparable local licensing charge.

“Other major cities across the country charge a pittance relative to San Jose,” the complaint says.

At the center of the case is a basic constitutional principle: Government cannot transform a fundamental right into a privilege available primarily to those wealthy enough to afford it.

The Supreme Court has already warned that excessively high fees cannot be used to prevent ordinary citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense. The DOJ contends that San Jose’s policy crosses precisely that constitutional line.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon delivered a forceful defense of gun owners while announcing the department’s action.

“All law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms for self‑defense. This right is not a luxury reserved for a privileged few, but a fundamental element of our republic,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon. “You don’t need a law degree to recognize that charging a fee several times higher than the cost of the firearm itself is illogical, and an unconstitutional attempt to impede Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

The legal challenge represents another move by President Donald Trump’s Justice Department to confront local governments accused of obstructing lawful firearm ownership.

Earlier federal action targeted Los Angeles County over severe delays in processing concealed-carry applications. The Justice Department alleged that applicants sometimes faced waits of as long as two years, despite California law requiring officials to begin reviewing applications within 90 days.

That dispute ultimately produced a settlement requiring the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to bring its procedures into compliance with the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The high court’s 2022 ruling affirmed that the Constitution protects the right of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. It also rejected licensing systems that give officials sweeping discretion over who may exercise that right.

The San Jose lawsuit focuses on a different tactic but raises the same underlying concern. Instead of imposing endless delays or subjective eligibility standards, the city allegedly created a financial obstacle so severe that many residents cannot realistically overcome it.

Such a system effectively creates two classes of citizens: those who can afford to exercise their constitutional rights and those who cannot.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is seeking an injunction preventing San Jose from continuing to charge what the federal government describes as an excessive and unconstitutional fee.

Its Second Amendment Section is responsible for enforcing the Second Amendment, the Police Pattern or Practice Act and President Trump’s Executive Order 14206.

The case could have consequences well beyond San Jose. If the federal government prevails, other cities may be forced to reconsider costly permitting systems that price working Americans out of exercising their right to armed self-defense.

California officials have spent years testing the boundaries of the Second Amendment through mandates, restrictions, delays and fees. The Trump administration’s latest lawsuit sends a clear message: Constitutional rights cannot be taxed out of existence simply because local politicians disapprove of them.