A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has refused to block a San Jose, California "harm reduction ordinance" requiring firearm owners to pay an annual fee and to carry liability insurance to cover unintentional deaths, injuries, or property damage. The case is National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City of San Jose, N.D. Cal., Case No. 22-cv-00501-BLF.
The City of San Jose (the City) passed the Reduction of Gun Harm – Liability Insurance Requirement and Gun Harm Reduction Fee ordinance on January 25, 2022. In the preamble of the ordinance the City determined that the Ordinance was an exercise of its police powers "for the protection of the welfare, peace and comfort of the residents of the City of San Jose." This lawsuit was filed the same day.
The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Mark Sikes sued the City, City Manager Jennifer Maguire and City Counsel to challenge the ordinance, claiming that the ordinance violated the Second Amendment, was a special tax requiring the citizens to vote on it, and implicated the First Amendment as well, because fees are directed to an as-yet named nonprofit that will spend the money on programs to mitigate gun risk. On July 1, the City suspended its implementation of the ordinance, pending legal clarification.
San Jose framed the law as public safety and an economic issue with the city annually spending $39.7 million, or approximately $151 per firearm-owning household, to respond to gun violence. The judge noted that the court was not ruling against anyone, instead, it was waiting until the city did its job, and "if they never enact a fee amount, a penalty amount, and designate a nonprofit" then the NAGR would win.
This suit was one of three similar lawsuits challenging the law, the first of its kind in the nation. Judge Beth Labson Freeman said she was likely to consolidate the three lawsuits and later issue a single ruling.
California lawmakers are considering another bill, S.B. 505, which would establish a statewide gun owner liability insurance mandate, another national first in legislation.
Editor's Note: Liability insurance will not pay for intentional acts, and will only provide coverage for situations where an accidental shooting occurs. Proponents of statutorily requiring liability insurance argue that it will encourage safe behavior and provide coverage for accidents such as when a toddler finds an unlocked firearm at home and accidentally shoots another person. It is important that what is covered by such policies be completely understood by all parties.