President Trump’s Justice Department is suing San Jose over a $1,600 gun-permit fee while launching a national process to restore firearm rights, signaling a federal pivot to defend the Second Amendment in court and in policy.
Story Highlights
- Executive Order 14206 ordered a federal review to protect Second Amendment rights.
- Justice Department created a process to restore federal firearm rights for eligible people.
- Justice Department sued San Jose over a $1,600 carry-permit fee it says violates the Constitution.
- Civil Rights Division’s new Second Amendment Section is enforcing this agenda.
Trump’s Order Set the Agenda for Second Amendment Enforcement
Executive Order 14206, signed by President Trump, directed the Attorney General to review recent federal actions for possible Second Amendment violations and propose steps to fix them. The order reached across the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and covered actions from January 2021 through January 2025. This was not symbolic. The White House told the Department to bring back a plan and act on it to protect the right to keep and bear arms as recognized by the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department’s first major follow-through came as a rights-restoration process under federal law. The Department announced a finalized rule and a nationwide application path for eligible people who are barred from owning guns to seek restoration of their federal firearm rights. The rollout is framed as a formal, regulated channel, not a one-off gesture. The agency described how people can apply and what standards will guide decisions, marking a clear shift in posture toward due-process relief for citizens.
Justice Department Challenges “Exorbitant” Local Fees in Court
The Civil Rights Division filed suit against San Jose over a concealed-carry licensing fee near $1,600, arguing the charge blocks ordinary residents from exercising a constitutional right. The Department said the city’s price tag is an unreasonable burden on law-abiding people who want to carry for self-defense. The filing puts the federal government on record that steep fees can violate the Second Amendment, echoing the Supreme Court’s warning that “exorbitant fees” are not allowed under modern licensing systems.
The Justice Department linked this action to its new Second Amendment Section inside the Civil Rights Division and to Executive Order 14206. The Department said the Section enforces the Second Amendment and the Executive Order’s goals. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon underscored the point, arguing that charging several times more than a firearm’s cost to get a permit looks like a barrier, not a service fee. This is a direct test of post-Bruen law in a federal courtroom, with national stakes for other cities that raised costs.
What This Means for Gun Owners and Local Governments
Gun owners see two lanes opening: a path to restore rights where federal law allows it, and a federal backstop against local rules that price people out of self-defense. The rights-restoration rule gives eligible applicants a process with defined steps rather than guesswork. The San Jose case warns officials that steep fees risk being struck down. Together, these moves show the administration intends to align federal policy and litigation with the constitutional text and our nation’s legal tradition.
Opponents are pushing back. Two United States senators accused the Department of not fighting hard enough to defend older federal gun controls in separate disputes, calling the National Firearms Act a foundation of gun policy. Gun-control groups also attacked the restoration program as too permissive, claiming it could weaken safety protections. Those critiques target policy choices, not the core facts of the new lawsuit and restoration process. Courts will now judge the legal claims on history and law, not politics.
The Legal Backdrop: Bruen and the Cost of a Right
The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision changed the test for gun rules. Governments must show that a restriction fits our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, not rely on general public-safety claims. The Court also flagged licensing traps like long delays or high fees that deny ordinary citizens their rights. The Justice Department’s San Jose suit applies that exact framework. If a city can set a sky-high price on a right, the right shrinks to the few who can afford it — which the Constitution does not allow.
More litigation is likely. Cities and states that added new costs and hurdles after Bruen will face federal and private lawsuits. The Department’s new Second Amendment Section creates a focal point for these cases. On the administrative side, the restoration program will test how well the government can provide clear, fair relief to people who qualify under law. Results in court and in the program will show whether this federal shift delivers on Executive Order 14206’s promise to defend the Second Amendment for all Americans.
Sources:
pjmedia.com, newsmax.com, federalregister.gov, theepochtimes.com, npr.org, dailycaller.com, padilla.senate.gov
