The Justice Department sued San Jose and its police department on September 16, alleging that the city has put a $1,591 price tag on the constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

That figure is only San Jose’s municipal application fee. It does not include state charges, fingerprinting, mandatory training, or the applicant-funded psychological evaluation imposed by the San Jose Police Department.

Under the city’s system, a first-time applicant pays $318 up front and another $1,273 when the license is issued. The federal complaint argues that the charge is not a legitimate administrative fee but an abusive financial barrier designed to make lawful carry impractical for middle-class residents and impossible for many lower-income citizens.

The Second Amendment does not protect only those with enough disposable income to satisfy anti-gun officials. The right to bear arms belongs to “the people,” not merely the people who can afford San Jose’s toll.

San Jose Made Carry a Rich Man’s Right

California law permits local licensing authorities to recover the reasonable cost of processing concealed-carry applications. According to DOJ, however, the San Jose resolution establishing the $1,591 charge does not attempt to justify that amount.

The complaint compares San Jose with jurisdictions that are hardly known for respecting gun rights. San Francisco charges $144. Washington, D.C. charges $75, Boston charges $100, Chicago charges $150, and Philadelphia charges $20. Even New York City’s three-year license costs $340.

DOJ does not concede that every one of those fees is constitutional. The comparisons show just how far outside the norm San Jose has gone.

The Supreme Court expressly warned in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that a nominally “shall-issue” licensing system can still violate the Second Amendment when “exorbitant fees” deny ordinary citizens their right to carry. A city cannot replace the discretionary “proper cause” test struck down in Bruen with an equally effective wealth test.

Psychological Testing Adds Another Infringement

The financial barrier is not San Jose’s only attack on the right to bear arms. SJPD also forces applicants to undergo a psychological evaluation and pay the evaluator before receiving a permit. According to DOJ, California law does not require that examination, and San Jose’s municipal code does not authorize it. The police department imposed it through its own policy.

That turns a pre-existing constitutional right into a privilege granted only after a government-approved psychologist decides an applicant is “worthy” to exercise it. The Second Amendment contains no psychological-test exception, and it gives police departments no authority to demand a mental-health permission slip from peaceable citizens before allowing them to bear arms.

The policy compounds that constitutional abuse by leaving applicants responsible for an unspecified fee charged by an “authorized psychologist.” DOJ alleges that applicants receive no advance notice of the cost or assurance that it reflects only the licensing authority’s reasonable expense. After Bruen stripped anti-gun officials of their discretionary “proper cause” test, San Jose appears to have rebuilt the same gatekeeping system through wealth and psychological screening. The label changed; the unconstitutional presumption did not. San Jose still treats citizens as disqualified from exercising the right to bear arms until they pay the government’s price and prove otherwise.

DOJ Expands Its Second Amendment Civil-Rights Campaign

The legal vehicle is as important as the dollar amount. DOJ sued under 34 U.S.C. §12601, which authorizes federal action against a pattern or practice of law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of constitutional rights. Because SJPD administers and enforces the licensing system, DOJ argues that collecting the fee constitutes unlawful police misconduct.

This is not an isolated theory. AmmoLand has documented DOJ’s growing use of federal civil-rights authority against government gun-control schemes. The department challenged years-long carry-permit delays in Los Angeles, sued Montgomery County over its sprawling 100-yard carry ban, and targeted California’s Glock ban and handgun roster. DOJ has advanced the same civil-rights theory against Washington, D.C.’s bans on AR-15s and suppressors.

That is the correct principle: gun rights are civil rights. Officials enforcing unconstitutional gun laws are not merely making questionable policy choices; they are depriving Americans of a right secured by the Constitution.

DOJ seeks declaratory relief and a permanent injunction barring San Jose from charging abusive licensing fees and requiring corrective policies. The case is United States v. City of San Jose, California, et al., No. 5:26-cv-10508, in the Northern District of California.

For now, this remains a complaint, not a judgment or injunction. San Jose’s requirements remain in effect unless the city changes course or the court intervenes. But the message from DOJ is unmistakable: a government cannot claim to respect Bruen while pricing ordinary citizens out of the right it protects.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.