San Jose has raised the cost of applying for a concealed carry permit to $1,591, a figure gun rights activist and YouTuber Colion Noir says functions like a ban even though the city has not formally prohibited anyone from carrying a firearm.
That amount covers only the city’s initial application fee. Once state charges, mandatory training, and a required psychological evaluation are included, Noir said a first-time applicant could spend more than $2,000 before receiving permission to carry a handgun for personal protection.
The city requires applicants to pay $318 when filing and another $1,273 if the permit is issued, according to the figures Noir discussed in his video.
“No new law, no vote, no ban a court can slap down,” he said. “Just a price tag.”
A Right Placed Behind a Paywall
Noir argued that the fee creates a system in which wealth determines who can realistically exercise the right to carry a firearm.
A person with several thousand dollars available may be able to complete the process without much difficulty, while someone living paycheck to paycheck could be priced out before submitting an application.
“How does somebody living on a fixed income come up with $2,000 to exercise a right that’s supposed to belong to everybody?” Noir asked.
His answer was direct: many people simply cannot.
He described the policy as a “right for the rich,” arguing that the people most affected will often be working-class residents, single parents, retirees, and others who do not have large amounts of disposable income.
Those same residents may live in neighborhoods where they feel most exposed to violence or regularly travel home late from work, Noir said.
The argument is compelling because the burden of a flat fee does not fall equally. A $2,000 process may be inconvenient for a wealthy applicant, but it can be impossible for someone choosing between rent, food, utilities, and transportation.
Nearly as Much as a Gun Store License
Noir compared the concealed carry application fee with the price San Jose charges to license a retail firearms business.
According to the figures he cited, a gun store pays $1,655 for its initial city license, only slightly more than the $1,591 charged to a private citizen seeking to carry one handgun.
“The city now charges a private citizen nearly as much to carry a handgun for personal protection as it charges a gun store to open its doors,” Noir said.
He presented the comparison as evidence that the cost is far out of proportion to the ordinary act of processing one resident’s application.
San Jose has reportedly described its charges as the product of staff time and administrative work. Noir rejected that explanation, saying the scale of the fee suggests the city is doing more than recovering reasonable costs.
A permit system can require paperwork, background checks, and staff review without necessarily becoming unconstitutional. The real question is whether those costs are tied to genuine processing expenses or set high enough to discourage people from applying.
The $25 Renewal Fee Raises Questions
The detail Noir considered most revealing was San Jose’s renewal charge.
While a new applicant must pay $1,591 to the city, an existing permit holder reportedly pays only $25 to renew.
Noir argued that this wide gap weakens the claim that the initial price is mainly about administrative expenses.
“Twenty-five bucks to renew, $1,591 to apply,” he said. “So, keeping a vetted, approved permit holder in the system costs the city basically nothing.”
A renewal is not identical to a first application, since a new applicant may require more screening and review. Even so, the difference is so large that it naturally raises questions about what the initial fee is designed to accomplish.
Noir believes the cost is concentrated at the beginning because that is where it can deter the greatest number of people.
“You don’t build a fee like that to cover paperwork,” he said. “You build it to make people give up at the door.”
That is the central claim behind his criticism: San Jose does not need to deny permits if the application price prevents ordinary residents from seeking one in the first place.
Mandatory Requirements Can Keep Expanding
Noir also used the San Jose policy to explain why he distrusts mandatory training and other government-controlled requirements.
Training may sound reasonable when described as a way to promote safe handling, he said, but every added hour creates another expense, and every new requirement gives officials another cost they can increase later.
“Watch how fast reasonable turns to unaffordable,” Noir said.
Applicants must pay training providers directly, while the psychological evaluation and state fees add further costs beyond the city’s $1,591 charge.
Noir’s broader concern is not that safety training has no value, but that the government can use layers of otherwise defensible requirements to build a process that few people can afford.
One modest fee may not create a major barrier. Several fees, exams, courses, and administrative charges combined can produce the same practical outcome as a denial.
This is where the debate becomes more complicated than a simple argument over permits. A policy can appear neutral on paper while affecting people very differently depending on their income.
Noir Points to the Bruen Ruling
Noir said the city’s fee could face a serious constitutional challenge under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
He noted that the ruling allowed shall-issue permit systems to remain in place, but warned that unusually long delays or excessive fees could still be challenged if they prevent ordinary citizens from carrying firearms in public.
“A fee doesn’t get to hide behind a spreadsheet,” Noir said. “If the price walls ordinary people out, the right is being denied.”
He also pointed to ongoing litigation involving the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, which are challenging Santa Clara County’s initial concealed carry fee.
Because San Jose is located within Santa Clara County and charges an even higher city fee, Noir said a successful challenge against the county could place San Jose’s system under greater legal pressure.
He urged viewers to watch those lawsuits closely, arguing that the courts may ultimately decide whether the city’s charge reflects legitimate costs or an unconstitutional barrier.
A Constitutional Right With an Entry Price
Noir closed by comparing concealed carry fees with other constitutional rights.
People do not pay a city more than $1,500 before speaking publicly, practicing their religion, or voting, he said, yet San Jose requires that payment before a resident can begin exercising the right to carry a firearm.
“You don’t pay to speak. You don’t pay to worship. You don’t pay to vote,” Noir said. “But in San Jose, you pay $1,591 for permission to defend your own life.”
The comparison is deliberately sharp, and critics may argue that permit processing involves administrative work that those other rights do not require. Still, Noir’s larger point remains difficult to dismiss: a right available only after a large payment will not be equally available to everyone.
San Jose has not formally banned concealed carry, and applicants with enough money can still move through the process. Noir argues that this is exactly what makes the policy more subtle.
Instead of passing a prohibition that could be challenged immediately, the city has created a financial barrier that may produce much the same effect for lower-income residents.
“A right you have to buy is not a right,” Noir said. “It is a privilege.”
Whether courts agree with that conclusion will depend on how they evaluate the city’s costs, its justification, and the practical burden placed on applicants. For now, the $1,591 fee has turned San Jose into a test case for how far a local government can go when regulating a constitutional right through price rather than an outright ban.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
