It was hailed as an innovative method for holding gun owners accountable. The gun liability insurance requirement in San Jose, the first of its kind in the US and recently upheld by a federal court judge, is believed by its supporters to contribute to a safer city by reducing firearm-related violence that has plagued the country. However, despite being in effect for nearly eight months since January 1, not a single resident has been cited for not having insurance, according to the city manager’s office. This raises doubts about the effectiveness of the law and whether firearm owners in San Jose are actually complying with it. The city does not have access to the state’s gun registry, making it unable to contact gun owners to ensure compliance. Instead, the city is attempting to increase cooperation through digital advertising, point-of-sale materials at gun retailers, and letters to local insurance agents.
Under the city ordinance, firearm owners must carry homeowner’s, renter’s, or gun liability insurance and ensure that it covers any losses or damages resulting from accidental use of their weapon. Documentation proving insurance coverage must be kept with the firearm at all times. In October, the San Jose City Council approved a measure imposing penalties of up to $1,000 on gun owners who fail to comply with the insurance requirement.
However, some critics argue that the law is merely a publicity stunt. Kostas Moros, an attorney who advocates for the Second Amendment, claims that the law was never intended to be an enforceable and responsible policy. Instead, it was designed to generate news coverage. He suggests that enforcement may only occur if a gun owner is in trouble for another reason.
The lack of enforcement also challenges another aspect of the law: the yearly fee paid by firearm owners to a non-profit organization dedicated to combating gun-related violence. While San Jose’s approximately 55,000 gun owners were expected to contribute over $1 million to the organization, it has not yet been formally established, even though the measure was approved by the council 17 months ago. This part of the law is currently in limbo due to a court ruling allowing plaintiffs to challenge the fee requirement on First Amendment grounds.
When questioned about how the city plans to raise the funds for the non-profit without information on who is complying with the law, a spokesperson for the city manager stated that they will communicate the fee requirement using a similar approach to what has been done for the insurance rule. This implies that the city intends to enforce the fee requirement once legal challenges are resolved.
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo believes that the recent court ruling has affected the city’s enforcement of the law. He stated that there was no expectation of impact until the legal battles were resolved. Liccardo hopes that now that the law’s constitutionality has been affirmed, the state’s gun registry, overseen by the attorney general, will become available for the city’s outreach efforts. He believes that local innovation in gun control can have a broader influence at the national level.
According to a statement from the San Jose Police Department, they are currently not enforcing the gun law due to the court ruling. However, they plan to provide refresher training to officers on how to enforce the ordinance now that legal challenges have been resolved.
Certain gun owners, such as low-income residents, sworn active or retired police officers, and those with concealed-carry licenses, are exempt from the law.
The Attorney General’s Automated Firearms System, which contains data on gun purchases and transfers, is not automatically updated and primarily exists for law enforcement purposes. The state faced legal issues in sharing the records with gun violence researchers after the passage of AB 173. Furthermore, the addresses listed in the registry may be outdated and not reflect a person’s current residence.
The failure of legislation that would have required the Department of Justice to mail notifications to firearm owners in San Jose regarding any new requirements imposed by the city further complicates the situation.
Political science professor emeritus Larry Gerston of San Jose State University suggests that if the case progresses through the appellate courts, it is possible that the conservative-majority US Supreme Court may take up the issue. However, this process could take years. Gerston believes that conveying to the public that the law is not being enforced due to the court order would be helpful. The plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit, the National Association for Gun Rights and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, have not yet indicated whether they will appeal the recent ruling.