‘A Modest Fee’ — San Jose Mayor Celebrates Passage of Gun Tax, Liability Insurance 

This week the San Jose City Council approved two gun-control mandates that will punish law-abiding citizens.  

The first requires all gun owners to purchase liability insurance and the second is an annual tax ($25) for simply exercising one’s right to keep and bear arms.  

The NRA-ILA reports, “Gun owners are required to fill out and sign a city-provided form attesting to compliance, and also to sign new forms each time their insurance information changes.”

“They are required to keep this form, along with proof of payment for the annual tax, with their firearms wherever they are being stored or transported,” it continued. “Failure to comply will result in firearms being impounded.”

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, a chief proponent of the so-called “Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, (GHRO)” was thrilled by its adoption. 

“Tonight San José became the first city in the United States to enact an ordinance to require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, and to invest funds generated from fees paid by gun owners into evidence-based initiatives to reduce gun violence and gun harm,” Mayor Liccardo said in a press release obtained by GunsAmerica. 

“Thank you to my council colleagues who continue to show their commitment to reducing gun violence and its devastation in our community,” he added.  

SEE ALSO: China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Calls Gun-Related Deaths in U.S. ‘Human Rights Issue’

On the positive side of things, at least one gun-rights group has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to block the mandates from rolling out and there is one last reading of the GHRO next month by the City Council before its finalized.

Maybe there is still time to foil this mission to chill the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens. NRA-ILA is asking gun owners to comment and take action:

For information on participating in the meeting, submitting eComments, or to view the agenda, you may click herePlease email a public comment to city.clerk@sanjoseca.gov, submit an eComment, and click the button below to contact City Council members and ask them to OPPOSE File 22-045.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 13 comments… add one }
  • survivor50 January 29, 2022, 6:39 pm

    ” Just a MODEST FEE … ”
    Plus INSURANCE…
    And PAPERS with you at all times…

    ” PAPERS PLEASE !!! “

  • paul I'll call you what I want/1st Amendment January 29, 2022, 11:42 am

    I’m sure it’s a gun registry among other things. The gun grabbers seem to be very proficient at taking away the wrong guns, now if they would just put half an effort towards the criminals instead that would be something!

  • Stan d. Upnow January 28, 2022, 12:19 pm

    The Progressive-Socialists know at this point that a plain frontal assault on our guns won’t fly. So, what do they do? They launch a flanking maneuver. Do you have auto insurance? Of course you do. Then you know you must tell the insurance company the make, model, year, VIN number, & registration # of that vehicle.
    It won’t be any different with their mandatory firearm insurance. And just like with vehicles, the rates will vary with the type and caliber of firearm you own; also the number of guns– more “risk,” ya know.

    So, what’s that all boil down to? Just this: A far-Left local govt. will know exactly what you own, where it’s located, how it’s stored, and will keep those records on file, i.e., de facto gun registration(and much more!).
    Think the Commiefornia state govt. won’t soon pass legislation to appropriate that information? Think again. Additionally, the insurance premiums will likely be astronomical, especially if you have a sizable collection, or any “weapons of war.”
    They stated: “Failure to comply will result in firearms being impounded.” (code-speak for destroyed)
    If you can’t afford the insurance, that will constitute a “failure to comply,” and bye-bye guns.

    This is a well strategized scheme to confiscate your guns and make it almost impossible to own them without outright banning them. It’s even better than a selective ban, since it impacts All the guns of every type. Guaranteed the Progressive-Socialists in DC will push to enact the same on a national level.

    • a11four1 January 28, 2022, 6:31 pm

      Pause before renewing riders on your homeowners policy. You know, lists of prized possessions; wife’s jewelry, paintings, furs, object d’ art, etc.
      That one underwriter, commercials faked on New York harbor skyline, statue in a clinging dress……will be first to hand over certain lists, being well known supporters of all things anti 2A.

      Another hint. Drop any ins. company using silly anecdotes, visuals and catch phrases. It’s very difficult, so few treat it in a serious manner.
      Recall it was Mary Poppins said ‘spoonful of sugar’, right? (hello bundling).
      Bundle? Legalized form of extortion.

      “NO Sir, we reduce total by combining”, she’ll say excitedly.
      “No, Miss, give me best rate for what I assign you, there are LOTS of willing companies”, you assert.
      “Well, I can’t offer……”
      “Good. Neither can I”
      Here is where some posts declare ‘crickets’. IYKWIM

  • Walleye January 28, 2022, 11:56 am

    Does this apply to all of the rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution, or just the 2nd?

    Clearly unconstitutional, but who’s going to push back besides GOA or NRA, if that?

    Perhaps the good old city of Kennesaw Georgia could make another statement to the anti-2Aers by requiring all politicians to carry Errors & Omissions Insurance as well as Liability Insurance for telling lies or untruths.

  • EasyEddie January 28, 2022, 11:09 am

    Homeowners and Renters policies already contain a Liability section that would extend to on and off premises liability. So, a ‘misdirected’ bullet that causes property damage or personal injury would potentially trigger that coverage (no pun intended). No policy on Earth will provide liability coverage for an intentional act. Thus, if you shoot someone in self-defense, you may be cleared of criminal charges, but remain exposed to civil litigation. An insurer could potentially try to say that shooting was an intentional act and decline to cover you. As with all things criminal and civil…get an attorney asap and give no statements.

  • John Boutwell January 28, 2022, 10:36 am

    The politicians that pass these illegal laws are the reason we have rope and light poles.

    • Stan d. Upnow January 28, 2022, 12:27 pm

      …and tall buildings.

      Understand that these anti-gun Lefties do not view firearm possession as a Right, but rather as a Privilege, like granting a motor vehicle driver’s license. Therefor, their two brain cells get together and reason that they can regulate you 2nd A. Right to Bear Arms however they choose. Not making that up; they’ve publicly stated it.

  • R B January 28, 2022, 7:59 am

    Is this insurance based on a policy for the individual gun owner or must a policy be written for each firearm that is owned?
    If the serial number is included in the policy, isn’t this just a backhanded way of forcing an illegal gun registration?
    I wonder how many criminals will get an insurance policy.

    • Rob January 28, 2022, 10:08 am

      It seems to me by this reading, “ They are required to keep this form, along with proof of payment for the annual tax, with their firearms wherever they are being stored or transported “, you would need this for each gun. If you are transporting one gun and you have another at home in your safe seems you would need insurance for each.

    • Stan d. Upnow January 28, 2022, 12:35 pm

      It’s likely that it would be a blanket policy, but with enumerated items. Similar to multiple motor vehicles on one policy. They might require a separate policy for a single item(s) that they deemed exceptional, e.g., very expensive, “unnecessarily powerful,” higher theft risk, or just “scary.”

  • Mikey don't like it January 28, 2022, 5:47 am

    Hasn’t this been tried before? Isn’t this the same as a poll tax?

    • Dee Ude January 28, 2022, 4:29 pm

      Yes it would be another version of the Jim Crow Poll Tax Laws. BTW all of those Jim Crow Laws were written and passed by Southern Dems.
      In fact a majority of Dems voted AGAINST the first Civil Rights Bill.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend