DOJ Sues San Jose, Alleging $1,600 Firearm Fee Is Unconstitutional

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the City of San Jose, California, alleging that its nearly $1,600 firearm licensing fee infringes the Second Amendment right to carry firearms for self-defense. The fee has risen by about $300 over three fiscal years to $1,591.

“San Jose is a national outlier when it comes to burdening the exercise of fundamental rights. Its fees are abusive and violate the Second Amendment,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in the Sept. 16 lawsuit.

The DOJ asked the court to issue permanent injunctive relief that would prevent defendants from imposing any “abusive licensing fees.” The San Jose Police Department is also a defendant in the case.

“The City’s law enforcement officers are charged with enforcing its abusive licensing scheme and are doing so. Such law enforcement misconduct is unlawful,” the DOJ added.

In Washington, the nation’s capital, a concealed carry license costs $75, while in New York, a handgun license costs $340. In Boston, the nonrenewable processing fee for a license to carry is $100. And in Philadelphia, a new license to carry firearms costs only $20.

Compared with other California locations, such as San Francisco, Berkeley, Santa Clara, and Alameda County, San Jose’s fees are still high, the DOJ said in the complaint.

The department said in the lawsuit that a fee designed to make it impossible for anyone, except the wealthiest, to exercise their constitutional rights “is the very epitome of abusive.”

The DOJ cited a previous Supreme Court case in which the court observed that exorbitant fees may “deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement that 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,” she 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 Epoch Times reached out to the City of San Jose and the San Jose Police Department for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

In January 2025, San Jose began requiring resident gun owners to carry liability insurance and pay an annual nonprofit fee, the first of its kind in the country.

The lawsuit comes as an appeals court ruled on Sept. 1 that machine guns and suppressors do not come under Second Amendment protections.

The three-judge panel in the case said that machine guns are not commonly used for self-defense purposes and that suppressors cannot be classified as firearms since they are unnecessary for a gun to properly function.

The Firearms Policy Coalition criticized that decision, calling it “horrifically flawed.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives indicated in July that it would further roll back gun regulations and propose minimizing fingerprinting requirements when applying for certain firearms.

Under the proposed rule, individuals will need to submit one fingerprint card instead of the current requirement of two. In addition, they can verify their identity with a photo ID instead of submitting a passport-style photo.