DOJ Strikes: $1,600 Gun Toll Challenged

Department of Justice seal on American flag background — Photo: chrisdorney / Shutterstock

The Justice Department sued San Jose over a $1,600 gun permit fee and launched a new path to restore federal firearm rights, signaling the White House is using executive power to reshape gun policy from inside the federal bureaucracy.

Story Highlights

Executive Order 14206 ordered a sweep of recent gun rules and a plan to protect Second Amendment rights.
The Justice Department created a process for eligible people to seek restoration of federal gun rights.
Federal lawyers sued San Jose, arguing its $1,600 carry permit fee blocks a constitutional right.
Gun-control advocates and several senators condemned parts of this shift as risky.

White House Order Set the Policy Course

Executive Order 14206, signed in early 2025, told the Attorney General to review gun-related rules from January 2021 to January 2025 and report back with a plan to protect Second Amendment rights. The order named actions by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives as subjects for review. The directive placed the President’s mark on policy, setting expectations that agencies would adjust rules and enforcement to meet a rights-focused standard.

The order’s structure matters because it uses management tools, not only speeches, to change direction. The Attorney General was told to examine orders, regulations, and guidance, then present a plan of action to the President. That instruction created a paper trail and deadlines inside the department. It also tied future actions to a formal White House mandate, which is why later steps by the Justice Department point back to the order when explaining new initiatives.

Justice Department Launches Rights Restoration Path

In August 2026, the Justice Department announced a finalized rule and a new process for eligible people who are federally barred from having guns to apply for restoration of their federal firearm rights. The department framed the move as creating a clear, lawful path under federal law. The release described an operational program, not just a policy idea, emphasizing applications, standards, and an implementation timeline. This marks a shift from past years when Congress limited funding for individual restoration reviews.

The rollout drew quick pushback from gun-control advocates, who argued the program weakens safeguards and serves industry interests. A leading advocacy group called the rule a gift to the gun industry and warned about reduced protections. National Public Radio coverage cited critics who said the process lacks transparency and could let risky cases slip through. These reactions show how any change in access rules sparks fear on one side and relief on the other, with trust in federal gatekeeping already in short supply.

Federal Lawsuit Targets Local “Exorbitant” Fees

On September 16, 2026, the Justice Department sued San Jose over a concealed-carry fee near $1,600, arguing the charge places an unconstitutional financial barrier on a core right. The department’s release highlighted a new Second Amendment Section inside the Civil Rights Division and said the section enforces both the Constitution and the executive order. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said fees many times the cost of a firearm are illogical and an unconstitutional attempt to impede the right.

This lawsuit fits the post-Bruen legal map, where fights often center on permits, delays, and costs rather than outright bans. The Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling rejected interest-balancing and warned that “exorbitant fees” can deny ordinary citizens their rights, a theme lower courts and analysts have echoed. By targeting price barriers, the department is testing how far local governments can go when they fund training and screening through user fees rather than general budgets.

Tension Inside and Outside the Government

Opposition extends beyond city halls. Two United States senators accused the department of failing to defend the National Firearms Act and called it a bedrock gun-violence-prevention law. Advocacy groups denounced rights restoration as unsafe. Reporting has also described internal splits within the department over how hard to fight in appellate courts, though those accounts rely on unnamed sources and should be weighed with care. These cross-pressures underscore how trust in federal institutions remains fragile.

For many Americans, the through-line is power and accountability. Supporters see the White House finally reining in rules they view as mission creep by agencies. Critics see the department stretching executive power to undo guardrails that protect public safety. Both sides worry that elite actors make the biggest choices behind closed doors. The record here shows real actions: an executive order, a restoration rule, and a federal lawsuit. What remains unclear are internal plans and final court outcomes, which will decide how far this shift goes.