A City’s Carry Fee Sparks Constitutional Fight

San Jose set a $1,591 barrier between its residents and a carry permit, and the Department of Justice’s top civil-rights lawyer just called it unconstitutional.

At a Glance

San Jose lists a $1,591 initial concealed-carry application fee, plus state and vendor costs.
Policy requires nonrefundable payment at submission and the rest at issuance.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon warned the city the fees violate the Second Amendment.
The fight echoes past cases over when fees become a de facto tax on rights.

San Jose’s Price Tag And The Federal Warning

The San Jose Police Department fee schedule sets the initial concealed-carry application at $1,591. The city collects 20 percent, or $318, when you file, and charges the remaining $1,273 if it issues the license. These amounts do not include the state fee or any vendor payments for training or testing. The city’s own page says city fees are in addition to state charges and required third-party services. That total bill lands far north of $1,600 for a new applicant.

The department’s policy explains the payment steps in plainer terms. Applicants must submit a check to the California Department of Justice for the state application fee and a separate check to San Jose for a nonrefundable 50 percent of the city fee at submission. The city then requires payment of the balance if it issues a license. The same policy says applicants also pay for fingerprinting, a psychological exam or interview, and a firearms training course.

What Dhillon Said, And Why It Matters Now

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division put the city on notice. A report described her letter to San Jose leaders stating the fee scheme denies ordinary citizens their right to carry in public and authorizing a federal complaint. She framed the charge as a burden on a core right, not a neutral cost. The thrust is simple: constitutional rights are not for sale, and pricing out the working class offends equal justice.

That claim lands in a live legal debate. Courts have allowed governments to recoup true administrative costs for permits in some contexts, but not to use fees to chill protected activity. First Amendment fee cases built that line. Second Amendment litigation now borrows those tests. Academic work has long asked where “cost recovery” ends and “rights tax” begins, especially for poor applicants. That is the crossroad San Jose now stands at.

How San Jose’s Fees Compare, And What Courts Have Tolerated

Prior rulings show courts upholding modest gun licensing fees when tied to actual processing costs, like background checks and staff time. In New York City, a court approved a $340 handgun licensing fee because it matched administrative expenses and did not aim to suppress gun ownership. That framework turns on evidence of cost, not a city’s desire to discourage exercise of the right. San Jose’s figure is more than four times that number.

🚨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 also layers unique costs. The city policy builds in a psychological exam or interview and vendor-paid training on top of the base city fee and the state fee. The city may argue these steps raise real costs. The question a court will ask is clear: do these dollars match actual, needed administrative work, or do they function as a barrier? If the latter, common sense and American conservative values say the scheme fails. Government cannot ration rights by income.

What Comes Next, And The Stakes For Voters

The Department of Justice warning sets up a direct test case. If the city does not change course, a federal suit could force discovery into internal budgets, staff time, vendor requirements, and how the $1,591 was set. That record will matter more than slogans. If the numbers track real costs, the city will lean on past approvals of cost-based fees. If they do not, the program risks being labeled a paywall on a constitutional freedom.

Voters should watch for two tells. First, whether San Jose publishes a transparent breakdown that ties each dollar to a lawful task. Second, whether the city offers a hardship waiver or scaled fees. Many permit systems cap or adjust charges to avoid excluding lower-income applicants. If San Jose refuses both transparency and relief, it strengthens the claim that the fee is a de facto tax on a right, not a neutral ledger entry.

Bottom Line For San Jose, And Beyond

San Jose chose an outlier price, then stacked extra vendor costs on top. The Department of Justice’s civil-rights chief has now drawn a bright line. A city can charge to cover real work. A city cannot use money to fence out its own people from a freedom they already hold. If this case reaches a judge, expect a simple test: show your receipts, or drop the tollbooth at the door of the Second Amendment.