Justice Department sues San Jose, police over gun permit fee
(KRON) — The U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday that it has filed a lawsuit against San Jose and its police department, alleging the city charges private individuals unreasonable fees to exercise their Second Amendment right to lawfully carry a firearm.
According to a Justice Department press release, San Jose’s firearm permit fee is the highest in the country at nearly $1,600 per license.
“Indeed, San Jose’s fee towers over those imposed by the country’s biggest cities. New York, Washington, D.C., Boston and Chicago all charge a small fraction of San Jose’s fee,” the Justice Department said.
“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,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said. “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 Justice Department said people who believe a state or local government has infringed on their right to keep or bear arms can submit a complaint through its Second Amendment Section.
San Jose’s city attorney provided the following statement in response to the lawsuit:
Dear Ms. Dhillon:
I have received and reviewed your Sept. 9, 2026, letter. Based on my review, the comments expressed therein appear to be based on a number of misconceptions about how the City’s concealed carry weapon (“CCW”) license fee actually works, both in its amount and, just as importantly, when it is collected. The purpose of this letter is to clarify these misunderstandings.
The City’s $1,591 CCW license fee is a full cost-recovery fee lawfully charged for the vital public safety purpose of processing CCW license applications.
It is not an arbitrary number set to discourage applicants. Rather, it reflects the documented, actual and current cost of processing a CCW license application. Of that total, $1,243.52 covers staff time, which has been established at 6.50 hours per application and is supported by a time-and-task analysis. The remaining $347.55 covers indirect overhead. Every dollar of the fee is tied to a specific, auditable cost of performing this work. The calculation is reviewed annually for accuracy and adjusted as required.
In fact, the San José Police Department proactively streamlined its CCW licensing process two years ago, reducing the staff time included in the fee calculation from eight hours to 6.50 hours per application. This directly made the CCW licensing process more efficient and less costly. Contrary to your assertions, a department seeking to erect barriers to the exercise of a constitutional right would not go out of its way to make its own process more efficient.
Equally important, applicants do not pay the full $1,591 fee up front. This is a central error in your letter. As you may know, California Penal Code § 26190 authorizes the City to collect up to 50% of the license fee at the time of filing. However, in an effort to simplify the process, the City requires applicants to pay only 20% of the fee — $318 — when the application is filed. The remaining balance is due only if, and when, a license is actually issued. If an application is denied, the City collects nothing further.
The fee also falls squarely within California state law requirements. California Penal Code § 26190(b)(1) permits the City to charge “a fee in an amount equal to the reasonable costs for processing the application for a new license or a license renewal, issuing the license, and enforcing the license.” The City’s fee does exactly that, no more. Courts have long recognized that governments may impose fees on the exercise of a constitutional right when those fees are designed to cover the actual expenses of administering the regulation.
Finally, we disagree that the Bruen, Heller or Wolford cases are applicable. Specifically, the Supreme Court’s concern in Bruen was with fees “put toward abusive ends” — fees untethered to cost and designed to price ordinary citizens out of exercising their rights. That is simply not the case here. The City of San José’s fee is transparent, well documented and reviewed annually. Moreover, the fact that the City collects an initial application fee that is far below what the law would allow it to charge demonstrates that the City is committed to making the CCW permit process as efficient and accessible as possible.
The City remains committed to lawfully implementing California’s shall-issue licensing framework and to ensuring that responsible, law-abiding residents can exercise their Second Amendment rights. We do not believe the facts support a finding that San José’s fee structure, properly understood, denies that right to ordinary citizens.
I am available to meet if you believe that would assist in your further understanding of our permit process. We would be happy to walk your office through the detailed and documented time-and-task analysis, the fee schedule and the City’s collection practices. We believe such a conversation would clarify the City’s lawful CCW permit program without the need to expend public resources on additional litigation that will only arrive at the same conclusion.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney