You better be rich in San Jose if you want to own a gun. It is already known the police can not protect you—so your life is on the line. The fascists running the city government are now demanding you pay for a special insurance policy and new fees to own a weapon. Where do the fees go? To anti-gun organization to finance their political efforts to take away your guns!
“The association — which describes itself as a nonprofit grassroots organization dedicated to defending the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms — and Sikes, a San José resident, claim the ordinance also violates their First Amendment rights because money paid for insurance would go to anti-gun organizations they do not choose to support.
According to the complaint, about 50,000 people own guns in San José, all of whom would be required to pay insurance and some fees to maintain their gun ownership rights under the ordinance. The plaintiffs say the ordinance forces gun owners to pay for crimes committed by people using unregistered guns.”
I guess the San Jose city council is auditioning for the Hong Kong city council—which is actually run by the Chinese Communist Party. Both the Democrats in San Jose and the Communists in China do not want you to be able to protect yourself.
Attempt to block San José gun fee ordinance rejected by federal judge
Claims that San José’s requirements that gun owners pay a fee and carry liability insurance are unconstitutional won’t likely succeed, the judge ruled.
NATALIE HANSON, Courthouse news, 8/4/22
The association — which describes itself as a nonprofit grassroots organization dedicated to defending the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms — and Sikes, a San José resident, claim the ordinance also violates their First Amendment rights because money paid for insurance would go to anti-gun organizations they do not choose to support.
According to the complaint, about 50,000 people own guns in San José, all of whom would be required to pay insurance and some fees to maintain their gun ownership rights under the ordinance. The plaintiffs say the ordinance forces gun owners to pay for crimes committed by people using unregistered guns.
They asked for a preliminary injunction to stop the ordinance from being enforced starting Aug. 8, which was subsequently delayed to December this year. But after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on concealed carry rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n., Inc. v. Bruen in June, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman asked the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing Bruen and the legal standard for evaluating Second Amendment issues.
Under Bruen, government entities must justify any regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with a “historical tradition of firearm regulation” and cannot simply claim the regulation promotes an important interest.
On Wednesday, Freeman denied the preliminary injunction request, finding the plaintiffs are unlikely to prove the city’s regulation is inconsistent with other historical gun regulations. She also found the challenge unripe for review because the City Council has not yet decided what the fee will be or which nonprofit the money will go.
She rejected the gun owners’ claims the ordinance’s insurance and fee provisions are preempted by state law. As for their claim the fee violates their First Amendment rights because it’s a tax that wasn’t approved by voters, Freeman found that claim would likely fail because it’s not a tax under state law since the money doesn’t go into the city’s coffers.
The city and gun owners appeared before Freeman on Thursday to argue the city’s motion to dismiss. Freeman took the matter under submission.
Mayor Sam Liccardo first proposed similar legislation after a mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in 2019. He has said gun owners should bear the burden of gun education and victim services. According to Liccardo, San José spends nearly $8 million a year responding to gun-related incidents.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, Liccardo released a statement saying it will “create nightmares” for police departments and cities trying to control “ubiquitous gun possession.”
“The imperative grows for sensible gun regulation that reduces the risk of gun harm, such as through San José’s approach: requiring gun owners to obtain insurance, and reinvesting gun fees in mental health, domestic violence prevention, and other services — particularly for households where a gun is owned,” Liccardo said.
The city’s attorney Tamarah Prevost called Freeman’s ruling “a preliminary positive development, in that it prevents one gun rights group from immediately blocking San José’s groundbreaking law.”
Liccardo lauded the decision as an “important step forward for sensible gun regulation.”
Michael Columbo of Dhillon Law Group said they are disappointed the ordinance was not paused but glad to hear the city announce it is shelving the ordinance for now. He hopes Freeman will consolidate the case with two others and looks forward to an order on the city’s motion to dismiss.
“In the meantime, the ordinance is not in effect and, despite studying the legal landscape intensely before enacting the ordinance, the city manager is apparently now stumped on how to actually implement it in a lawful way,” Columbo said.
