DOJ to Sue San Jose Over Excessive Carry Permit Fees, Issues September Negotiation Deadline

Get the News2A App

Faster, cleaner, and instant alerts the moment major Second Amendment news breaks. Download free:

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play
A copy of the U.S. Constitution with a price tag on it

SAN JOSE, Calif. — “Constitutional rights aren’t for sale. Charging $1,600 to carry a firearm outside the home is unconscionable and unconstitutional.” That was the message from the nation’s top law enforcement agency as the Department of Justice this week warned the city of San Jose, California that, absent a critical change, the DOJ will aggressively counter local “law enforcement misconduct” with a federal lawsuit.

The DOJ announced this action in a September 9 letter from Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the Civil Rights Division, which oversees the Second Amendment Section, the DOJ section tasked with protecting Second Amendment rights.

The notice of suit was addressed to San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, Chief of Police Paul Joselph, and City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood.

San Jose has one of – if not the most – expensive application fees for a permit to carry a concealed handgun in the nation, and this year increased it to an astronomical $1,591. The San Jose fee itself is orders of magnitude higher than other California jurisdictions.

No other enumerated constitutional right is tethered to such exorbitant fees, which have an obvious chilling effect both from the administrative and affordability perspective. That limits the ability to exercise these rights to only the wealthiest and most politically connected in society, an exclusionary tactic that the DOJ addresses head-on:

…the Supreme Court held that governments may implement shall-issue CCW licensing regimes and charge licensing fees so long as those licensing regimes are not “put toward abusive ends” by, for example, imposing “exorbitant fees [that] deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”

Notably, the DOJ is not addressing these issues from a Second Amendment perspective, but rather through the lens of law enforcement misconduct (under 34 U.S.C. Section 12601).

San Jose’s law enforcement officers are charged with enforcing its abusive licensing scheme and are doing so. Such law enforcement misconduct is unlawful. This letter is to inform you that as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, I have authorized the filing of a complaint in federal district court against the City.

Ms. Dhillon is requesting a response by September 15, at which time “The Department will consider deferring the filing of the lawsuit for a short period if the City is willing to enter pre-suit negotiations in an effort to resolve this matter.”

The Civil Rights Division is pursuing a lawsuit against California over its Glock ban under the same Section 12601 challenge, a litigation strategy that already led to a settlement with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department on another Second Amendment-related case, in mid-August.

You can view the full timeline of DOJ legal action related to the Second Amendment in our dedicated tracker.

Get the News2A App

Faster, cleaner, and instant alerts the moment major Second Amendment news breaks. Download free:

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

While completely optional, we ask that you consider contributing to News2A’s independent, pro-Second Amendment journalism. If you feel we provide a valuable service, please consider participating in a value-for-value trade by clicking the button below. Whether you’d like to contribute on a one-time basis or a monthly basis, we graciously appreciate your support, no matter how big or how small. And if you choose not to contribute, you will continue to have full access to all content. Thank you!

Share this story

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted

They make it possible for us to bring you this content for free!

0
Tell us what you think!x
()
x