U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman ruled in favor of the mandate, rejecting arguments from the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). The California municipality requires that gun owners pay a fee to a charity that is anti-gun violence, though that group has not been determined.
Even more ominous, gun owners must obtain liability insurance for their weapons. This is merely another attempt by the city government to create a higher barrier between law-abiding citizens and owning firearms.
The Colorado-based NAGR and California’s Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argued that the statute was unconstitutional. They further told the court that the city did not prove that its requirements would reduce gun violence.
Incredibly, Freeman decided that the San Jose law withstood the historical test imposed on those seeking gun control by the Supreme Court last year. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen set a clear standard for the constitutionality of new gun control measures to be determined.
“The City has demonstrated that the Insurance Requirement is consistent with the Nation’s historical traditions,” she wrote. “Although the Insurance Regulation is not a ‘dead ringer’ for 19th century surety laws, the other similarities between the two laws would render the Ordinance analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.”
She will allow the plaintiffs to submit an amended complaint over the annual fee required to fund the unknown charity on First Amendment grounds. Her reasoning was that the city did not already have a non-profit to partner with, thus plaintiffs could refile when that relationship is settled.
Freeman ruled the fee is not a tax under California law and therefore does not need voter approval. Her reasoning was that it will fund a non-profit instead of a government entity.
She further wrote that the $25 fee was not high enough to place an unconstitutional burden on the plaintiffs.
The judge claimed that requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance is not in conflict with the Second Amendment. One of her reasons is that the text of the amendment does not include liability insurance.
Pause for a moment.
If that is a viable argument, then virtually every gun control law on the books is moot. The Second Amendment does not make even a passing reference to waiting periods, background checks, bump stocks, pistol stabilizer braces, safe storage, red flags or any of an enormous list of categories in which courts have allowed guns to be regulated.
Freeman should well know that this is a moot point.
Just because the First Amendment does not specifically mention newspapers, television or the internet does not mean these are not covered under free speech and freedom of the press protections.
The First Amendment also did not express a specific religion — because it did not have to. The intended freedom was clear.
On the plus side, a recent report by San Jose Inside revealed that city authorities have essentially given up their push to enforce the liability insurance mandate. Their effort quickly defaulted to the “honor system,” and there has not been a single citation written for any of the city’s 52,000 registered gun owners over lack of insurance.
San Jose’s requirements are not as oppressive as when they were initially introduced, but they still impose unique requirements that the Supreme Court certainly did not intend to permit.
And already, New Jersey is attempting to copycat the San Jose law to place further burdens on the state’s gun owners.
