The city of San Jose, California, is trying to curtail residents' Second Amendment rights by enacting an unaffordable fee for a concealed carry permit. Under that scheme, anyone who wants to exercise his Second Amendment rights must not only apply for the permit and pay $318 when the application is filed, another $1,273 is due if the San Jose Police Department actually issues the permit.

That means San Jose residents have to pay more than $1,600 for their Second Amendment rights, plus the California DOJ fee of $93. Applicants also need to submit for a Live Scan or fingerprinting, take a psychological exam, and complete a training course. All told, that could put the costs for first-time applicants over $2,000.

Authorities know this is cost-prohibitive for many Americans, and that's the point. If they can't ban the Second Amendment outright, they'll find extralegal means to do it.

But Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon isn't letting San Jose get away with this, and she put the city on notice that our Constitutional rights are not for sale.

Dhillon sent a letter to Mayor Matt Mahan, Police Chief Paul Joseph, and City Attorney Alcala Wood. 

Recommended
No Doubt, This Is the Part of Trump's Convention Speech That the Libs Will Go Insane Over Matt Vespa How 9/11 Changed Everything Kurt Schlichter

The letter says:

As you know, this year, the San Jose City Council increased the initial application fee for a license to carry a concealed weapon (commonly known as a “CCW license”) to $1,591. San Jose, Cal., Res. No. 2026-183 § 11 (2026). None of your nearby jurisdictions come close to charging a nearly $1,600 application fee for a CCW license. For example, San Francisco charges only $144. Berkeley charges $255 to apply and $325 more once approved. Santa Clara charges $488 up front and $488 at issuance, and Alameda County charges $347 and $346 for the same. To our knowledge, San Jose charges the highest CCW application fee in the entire nation.

The right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is among those fundamental rights necessary to the American system of ordered liberty. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 778 (2010). The Second Amendment protects that right, and that protection operates to prevent law enforcement agencies from enforcing regulations that prevent ordinary citizens from carrying firearms in public for self-defense while they go about their daily lives. See Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032, 2047–48 (2026).

I want to emphasize the word “ordinary.” In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), 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.” Id. In the United States, keeping and bearing arms is not a luxury enjoyed by the privileged few. It is a right enjoyed by all “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008).

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. The complaint will allege that the City’s abusive CCW licensing fee denies ordinary citizens their Second Amendment right to public carry, and the San Jose Police Department’s implementation of the city’s abusive policy is a pattern or practice of law enforcement misconduct that is unlawful pursuant to 34 U.S.C. § 12601. See United States v. Cnty. of Maricopa, 889 F.3d 648, 653 (9th Cir. 2018) (law enforcement officers’ enforcement of unconstitutional municipal policy violates Section 12601).

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. Although the specific provisions are open to discussion, a resolution must at a minimum require that the City: (1) immediately cease enforcement of the fees identified above; (2) acknowledge the unconstitutionality of these fees; and (3) agree to enter into a court-enforceable consent decree permanently enjoining the City from violating its citizens’ constitutional rights through these or any similar laws.

This letter also serves as a document-retention notice. Please ensure that City officials, employees, and contractors preserve in their current form any and all records, including documents, photos, videos, files, tapes, emails and computer files, that may be relevant to this matter.

We hope that the city shares our interest in achieving a voluntary resolution of this matter. We ask that you inform us no later than September 15, 2026, whether the city is interested in entering into pre-suit settlement negotiations. If we do not hear from you by 5:00 p.m. ET, September 15, 2026, the United States may file its complaint without further notice.

We'll see what city officials do.

Democrats scream about how requiring ID to vote is a "poll tax" but then they turn around and try to thwart our Second Amendment rights.

"Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed."

Moros notes that the training course can cost between $300 and $500, and the psych exam another $400 to $500.

Why do San Jose officials want to strip poor and working-class residents of their rights?

And she'll win this, too.

They want to strip us of our gun rights because they don't want us to be able to defend ourselves from what they've got planned.

Look at the agenda of the Democratic Socialists of America. They want a violent uprising to destroy this country, and know gun owners would stand in their way.