DOJ Sues San Jose Over $1,600 Concealed Carry Fee: ‘An Unconstitutional Tax on the Second Amendment’

The Justice Department sued the City of San Jose and the San Jose Police Department on Wednesday, arguing the city’s nearly $1,600 concealed-carry permit fee is an unconstitutional barrier to the Second Amendment, the highest such fee in the nation and several times the cost of many handguns themselves. 

San Jose hiked the CCW fee to $1,591 in June, a jump of nearly $300 in two and a half years. The DOJ maintains the city did so without a resolution that justifies the new price as actual processing cost.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who leads the Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section, announced the filing on X:

“The @CityofSanJose thinks they can charge $1600 for concealed carry permits and violate their citizens’ 2A rights. Wrong! The @CivilRightsDivision @theJusticeDept will see you in court.”

The @CityofSanJose thinks they can charge $1600 for concealed carry permits and violate their citizens’ 2A rights. Wrong! The @CivilRights Division @theJusticeDept will see you in court. 🤨https://t.co/JeWI9wntBo

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) September 16, 2026

The official complaint puts the city’s initial application fee at $1,591. Applicants must pay 20% ($318) up front. The remaining $1,273 is due if the license is issued. State fees, a psychological exam billed directly to the applicant, and a required training course push the real-world cost toward $2,000 to $2,500 before a law-abiding resident can legally carry for self-defense. 

“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,” Dhillon said in the Justice Department’s release. 

“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 Supreme Court has held that “exorbitant fees” deny ordinary citizens the right to carry firearms for self-defense. 

The complaint argues San Jose’s scheme cannot survive the Bruen test and has no grounding in the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. DOJ says the city’s purpose is plain: make carry “impractical for middle class citizens and impossible for low-income citizens.” 

San Jose, the lawsuit contends, treats the Second Amendment as a second-class right.

Dhillon sent a demand letter on September 9 to Mayor Matt Mahan, Police Chief Paul Joseph, and City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood, giving the city a chance to fix the fee without litigation. The city did not. 

NBC Bay Area reported Mahan’s office had not immediately responded; SJPD said it does not comment on pending litigation. 

The case is the latest California front in Dhillon’s campaign to enforce the Second Amendment as a civil right. 

In September 2025, the Civil Rights Division sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over a “pattern or practice” of stalling CCW applications, including data showing only two approvals out of more than 8,000 applications and interview dates scheduled as far as two years out. That suit later settled. 

The San Jose action follows the same playbook: price, delay, and process as tools to nullify Bruen without saying so out loud. 

San Jose has spent years testing how far a blue city can go. In 2022, the City Council, then under Mayor Sam Liccardo, became the first in the nation to require gun owners to carry firearm liability insurance and pay an annual ownership fee. Gun-rights groups vowed courtroom fights then. The new San Jose CCW sticker shock is the same infringement with a bigger tab. 

California’s broader record is familiar to Globe readers: SB 2’s “sensitive places” map after Bruen, the Glock sales ban set for 2026, magazine and ammo rules that keep cycling through the Ninth Circuit, the overturn of a 34-ban on “assault weapons,” and a non-resident carry ban a federal judge struck down. 

Exorbitant local fees are simply the municipal version of Sacramento’s strategy—regulate the right until only the well-off can exercise it. 

Residents who believe a city or county has priced or processed them out of carry can file a complaint.