A lawsuit challenging San Jose’s new law requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance suffered a major blow on Thursday after a federal judge dismissed nearly all the claims by pro-gun groups.
The new law, which was passed by the city council last year, faced immediate lawsuits by the Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights and the state’s Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which argued it was unconstitutional, burdensome and that San Jose hadn’t proven it would reduce gun violence.
The city is the first in the entire country to impose such rules on gun owners and its supporters contend that the requirements will encourage safer firearm handling.
In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman said the city “had demonstrated that the Insurance Requirement is consistent with the Nation’s historical traditions.” Freeman will allow the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint regarding the city’s requirement of a yearly fee paid by firearm owners toward a nonprofit that combats gun violence.
In a statement, the city of San Jose wrote that the judge’s decision “affirms that there are constitutional ways to provide protections from gun-related harms, such as liability insurance, for the public and gun owners. We believe that this decision will inform the work of other local and state entities working on gun safety initiatives.”
Former Mayor Sam Liccardo, who helped pass the insurance law wrote, “The Court’s order is a victory for San Jose today, and for many other communities in the future. The gun lobby’s grip over Congress and many state houses leaves it to local leaders to offer our families something more than ‘hopes and prayers.’ While we will need many innovative solutions to reduce the relentless human toll of gun violence in our communities, San Jose’s implementation of this ordinance will enable investments in mental health, domestic violence and suicide prevention, and other evidence-based measures to reduce firearm deaths and injuries.”
In a statement, the National Association for Gun Rights wrote, “This ruling is what happens when judges rely more on anti-gun groups like Brady than the actual ruling authorities here – namely the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court…No one would argue that having to pay $25 a year to petition your government or speak your mind wouldn’t violate those rights – and yet that is exactly what this court has claimed when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. This is a truly astounding example of bad-faith judicial acrobatics.”
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It was not immediately clear whether the plaintiffs in the case would be appealing.
The city’s law, dubbed the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, requires gun owners to purchase firearm, homeowner’s or renter’s liability insurance policy to cover any damages that come from the result of accidental or negligent use. According to the city, there are upwards of 55,000 gun owners in San Jose — and the yearly nonprofit fee could bring in over $1 million per year.
In October, the city council approved up to $1,000 in fines for residents who don’t follow the insurance requirements.
The city’s efforts to get a liability insurance law on the books began after a mass shooting in Gilroy in 2019 — and pressure ramped up after another massacre at a Valley Transportation Authority rail yard in 2021.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Source: www.mercurynews.com