The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has expanded its lawsuit challenging San Jose, California’s, concealed firearm carry permit fees to include the city's requirement for gun owners to maintain liability insurance. The initial lawsuit, which was filed last month, focused on the nearly $1,600 initial application fee for a license to carry a concealed firearm.
Under San Jose’s carry permit scheme, individuals seeking to obtain a concealed carry permit face a series of costs. Applicants must first pay a $318 application fee. If the San Jose Police Department issues the permit, an additional $1,273 is required. Further costs include a $93 California DOJ fee, Live Scan or fingerprinting expenses, a psychological exam, and a training course. For first-time applicants, these combined expenses bring the total to nearly $2,000.
The DOJ's amended complaint now also targets San Jose's insurance mandate, which took effect on January 1, 2023, after being passed in 2022. This ordinance requires gun owners to maintain a homeowner’s, renter’s, or specialized gun liability insurance policy. The policy must specifically cover losses or damages resulting from the accidental, unintentional, or negligent use of a firearm, including death, injury, or property damage. Additionally, the ordinance imposes a $25 annual fee intended to fund local gun violence-reduction programs and non-profit safety initiatives.
In its amended complaint, the DOJ asks the court to declare both the high cost of applying for a concealed carry permit and the insurance mandate unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The department seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the enforcement of these ordinances and to correct the policies.
DOJ attorneys argue in the complaint that a recent ruling in *Wolford v. Lopez* negates an earlier court ruling that affirmed the legality of the insurance mandate. The earlier ruling had held that the insurance requirement "does not implicate the Second Amendment’s plain text." The DOJ’s complaint states that this holding has since been abrogated by *Wolford*. The department is asking the Court to reconsider its earlier holding. Should the Court continue to believe the ordinance does not implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment, the DOJ seeks further appellate review based on arguments set forth in *Koons v. Att’y Gen. New Jersey*.
The DOJ’s case is brought under 34 U.S.C. §12601, which addresses a pattern or practice of law enforcement conduct that deprives people of their constitutional rights. The City of San Jose is named as the sole defendant in the amended complaint.
This is not the first legal challenge against San Jose’s insurance mandate. In April 2022, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a separate lawsuit, *Glass v. City of San Jose*, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. That lawsuit also challenged the insurance ordinance, with the FPC arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional. The FPC’s lawsuit stated that the government cannot impose a fee on the choice to exercise a constitutional right. It further argued that the government cannot restrict firearm ownership in ways that are novel, fail to advance asserted goals, and will not improve public safety or reduce the costs of gun violence. City officials have admitted that "criminals won’t obey insurance or fee mandates."
