Federal Lawyers Challenge A Costly Carry Permit

Bullet cartridge on firearm purchase form — Photo: Guy J. Sagi / Shutterstock

San Jose now charges more to apply for a concealed-carry license than New York City ever did, and the Department of Justice’s civil-rights chief just called it out.

Story Snapshot

San Jose’s police fee schedule lists a $1,591 initial concealed-carry application fee, split across filing and issuance.
City policy adds a nonrefundable 50 percent city fee at submission, plus required vendor-paid costs.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon warned the city that the scheme burdens a constitutional right.
Courts have upheld modest gun-licensing fees, but San Jose’s price tag tests that limit.

What San Jose Did And What It Costs

The San Jose Police Department’s fee schedule puts the initial concealed-carry application at $1,591. The city collects 20 percent, or $318, when residents file. It collects the remaining $1,273 if it issues the license. City fees come on top of the State of California costs and required training and psychological screening paid to outside vendors. The department’s policy confirms a nonrefundable 50 percent city fee is due at submission, plus the state fee, fingerprinting, training, and psychological testing costs.

That structure means a typical applicant faces well over $1,600 before training or a psychological exam, and still owes the state fee and vendor charges. The city defends the format as cost recovery in its materials, but the totals stand out. Even jurisdictions known for higher gun fees charge far less. New York City’s $340 handgun licensing fee, upheld by the courts, now looks small next to San Jose’s number. The sticker shock is not a rounding error. It is the model.

Why The Justice Department Weighed In

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Civil Rights Division, warned San Jose that the fees burden ordinary citizens’ right to carry in public. A report on the letter says she told the mayor, police chief, and city attorney that the “abusive” licensing fee denies the right to public carry and that she authorized a federal complaint if the city does not change course. The message is direct: government cannot wall off a right with a price fence and call it neutral administration.

That position tracks a core principle in rights law. Government may recover true paperwork costs, but it may not use fees to suppress protected conduct. First Amendment cases set that line years ago. Second Amendment cases have followed a similar path. Courts have upheld smaller, documented fees while warning against charges that outstrip administrative work. New York City’s $340 fee survived scrutiny; San Jose’s $1,591 will invite a harder look.

How Courts Have Treated Licensing Fees

Courts often allow modest gun-licensing fees that match actual processing expenses. In New York, federal courts upheld the $340 handgun license fee, stressing that it defrayed administrative costs and did not bar ordinary people from applying. That reasoning does not give cities a blank check. The legal thread is simple: cost recovery, not deterrence. When a fee grows so high that normal earners hesitate, the charge starts to look like a toll to exercise a right, not a filing fee.

🚨Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant AG for Civil Rights, highlighting the DOJ's letter threatening to sue San Jose for raising its concealed carry permit application fee to nearly $1,600, calling it an unconstitutional burden that prices out ordinary citizens' Second Amendment rights.… https://t.co/FnRvlXMYSM

— Cathrynne Sheena (@CathrynneSheena) September 9, 2026

San Jose’s schedule places most of the burden on the applicant regardless of outcome and adds vendor-paid training and psychological exams on top. That stack raises two questions. First, do the dollars match the city’s real costs? Second, does the total price shut out lower-income residents who pass background checks and training? Common sense, and conservative values, say rights should not hinge on the size of a bank account. If a city can price a right at $1,591, why not $3,000 next year?

What Comes Next For Residents And The City

Residents who already applied face the current rules unless the city revises them or a court steps in. The Department of Justice warning signals possible litigation. A court would likely demand evidence that the fee mirrors measurable costs and does not exceed them. Judges will compare San Jose’s figure to fees in other large cities and to internal time-and-motion data. If the numbers look padded or punitive, the city will have to trim them or risk losing in court.

The policy path is not hard. San Jose can publish a transparent cost audit, lower the fee to match documented work, and keep training standards without extra price spikes. That approach honors safety and the Constitution at once. The alternative is the long grind of federal litigation and a public reminder that fundamental rights are not for sale. When government confuses a permit desk with a cash register, courts tend to correct it.