Published September 17, 2026 at 1:05 PM ET · Updated September 17, 2026 at 2:13 PM ET
DOJ challenges California city's gun permit fee as unlawful barrier
2 independent outlets are covering this story, first reported here by WND. Verification: Corroborated (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
The Department of Justice has sued a California city over a gun permit fee reported at $1,600. The DOJ called the fee illogical, and one report noted it can exceed the cost of the firearm itself.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 13 d ago, when WND reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 13 d ago from Washington Examiner.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Bruen held that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers conduct, the government must justify its regulation with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. A permit fee that can exceed the cost of the gun burdens protected conduct, so the city must show historical analogues for a fee of that scale. Heller held the right is not unlimited, but these decisions leave fee levels unsettled.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Thomas
New York's requirement that applicants demonstrate 'proper cause' — a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community — to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense, and rejected the two-step means-end framework lower courts had applied after Heller.
District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Scalia
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The right is not unlimited: the Court noted that longstanding prohibitions (e.g., possession by felons and the mentally ill, carrying in sensitive places, conditions on commercial sale) remain presumptively lawful. D.C.'s ban on handgun possession in the home and its requirement that lawful firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
