DOJ Threatens San Jose Over $1,591 Concealed Carry Permit Fee
The Justice Department has warned San Jose it will sue unless the city lowers its concealed carry permit fees. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon sent the warning to Mayor Matt Mahan, SJPD Chief Paul Joseph, and City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood. San Jose charges $1,591 to apply, and the true cost of a permit climbs past $2,000 once training, a psychological evaluation, and fingerprinting are added.
Dhillon set a deadline of 5:00 PM ET on September 15 for city officials to contact the head of the Civil Rights Division's Second Amendment Section. Officials who want to avoid litigation must enter a pre-suit settlement by then. Otherwise, the Justice Department says it will file suit against the city and its police department over the fee policy.
Key Details
Dhillon's letter argues that the $1,591 application fee may be the highest in the country. Nearby jurisdictions charge far less. San Francisco charges $144. Santa Clara County, which already faces its own lawsuit over carry costs, charges roughly half of what San Jose does.
The fee alone does not cover the full expense an applicant faces. Training, a mandatory psychological evaluation, and fingerprinting all add cost. Put together, a San Jose carry permit runs well over $2,000 before the applicant carries a single round outside the home.
Dhillon also reminded city officials of Supreme Court precedent. The Court has held that even "shall issue" permit systems can violate the Second Amendment when they cause needless delays or impose exorbitant fees. That standard gives the Justice Department a clear legal theory to press.
Background
California is a "may issue" state in name for much of its history, but the post-Bruen legal landscape has pushed the state toward "shall issue" licensing. Local authorities still hold considerable discretion over how they process applications and what they charge. Under California law, licensing authorities may recover what they claim is the actual cost of processing a permit. That cost-recovery provision is where the dispute now centers.
The Civil Rights Division has already used this kind of pressure in California. It sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department over long delays in processing concealed carry permits. That case settled after the department began processing applications on time. The settlement shows the Division is willing to take permit administration problems to court and win concessions without a final judgment.
Berkeley charges a fee near $600, which is less than half of San Jose's. Still, that figure is more than ten times what a Virginia carry permit costs, according to Cam Edwards, who holds one. The gap between jurisdictions within the same state shows how inconsistent local cost decisions have become.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
A carry permit is only useful if ordinary people can afford it. When a fee reaches over $2,000, the right to carry becomes a privilege for applicants with money to spare. Lower-income residents of San Jose are effectively priced out of a constitutional right, and that outcome is the core of the complaint.
The case also reveals how a "shall issue" system can be hollowed out without ever formally denying a permit. A city does not need to refuse applications when it can layer on requirements and charges that make approval financially out of reach. Gun owners anywhere in the country should watch this closely, because the same tactics can appear in any jurisdiction that wants to make carry expensive.
The fee question also tests how far cost recovery can stretch. If a city can justify a $1,591 fee by pointing to processing expenses, the principle would let other localities justify similar amounts. Courts will have to decide whether the cost of administering a permit can be used to price citizens out of exercising a right.
DownRange Bottom Line
The Justice Department has put San Jose on a short clock. Either the city negotiates a reduction before September 15, or it faces a federal lawsuit over its carry fees. Either path would benefit San Jose's residents, because the current fee structure is hard to defend.
We will keep tracking this one. The deadline is close, and any settlement terms or filed complaint will tell us how aggressively the Second Amendment Section plans to push fee challenges elsewhere. Gun owners in California and beyond should expect more of these letters if this one works.
