San Jose, Calif., city councilors passed a measure late Tuesday requiring all firearm owners within the city limits to purchase liability insurance – a gun control measure that is believed to be the first of its kind in the United States.
The ordinance requires liability insurance, and a separate regulation requires all San Jose gun owners to pay a $25 annual fee to support violence prevention efforts.
Advocates, including San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, say the measures will encourage safe firearm ownership while also providing services and resources to those most impacted by gun violence.
“The point is, we can reduce a lot of harm, tragedy, and pain, even if we can’t magically make a gun fall out of the hands of the crook,” Liccardo told the Mercury News.
“Thank you to my council colleagues who continue to demonstrate their commitment to reducing gun violence and its devastation in our community,” he tweeted.
On May 27, 2021, people gather in San Jose, California, to mourn the deaths of several workers at the VTA light rail yard at a makeshift memorial. Before committing suicide, a coworker shot and killed nine other employees. Terry Schmitt/UPI contributed to this report.
Liccardo went on to say that having liability insurance will encourage gun owners to keep their firearms in a safe, use trigger locks, and attend gun safety classes.
The gun control measures are in response to three mass shootings in the San Jose area in the last three years, including one at a rail yard last May that killed nine people.
While several Democratic-led cities have proposed similar legislation, San Jose is the first to enact it – and it will almost certainly face legal challenges.
The National Foundation for Gun Rights has already stated that it will file a lawsuit against the city.
“This isn’t just about San Jose – or even California,” the group stated on its website. “If gun grabbers succeed in taxing the right to own a gun, every left-leaning local government in the country will quickly follow suit. This will be an expensive and time-consuming legal battle.”
Councilor Dev Davis voted against the ordinance, claiming it is unconstitutional and will have little effect on reducing gun violence.