SAN JOSE, Calif. — San Jose firearm owners will soon be subject to new gun control laws that no U.S. citizen has faced before.
In two separate votes, the San Jose City Council on Tuesday night passed a first-of-its-kind ordinance requiring residents who own a gun to carry liability insurance and pay an annual fee aimed at reducing gun violence — a divisive move that is sure to set off a series of legal challenges.
Councilwoman Dev Davis dissented on both items, saying that she believed the measures would be ineffective and might even be unconstitutional. Councilmembers Matt Mahan and Pam Foley voted against the fees, voicing concerns about the management structure.
Proponents like Mayor Sam Liccardo acknowledged that the two-pronged ordinance will not affect residents who unlawfully own guns. However, they argue that it will incentivize safer gun ownership, reduce the public cost of gun violence and provide resources and services for residents who are most affected by the use of guns — those who own a firearm or live in a home or are in a relationship with someone who does.
“The point is we can reduce a lot of harm and tragedy and pain, even if we’re not going to magically make a gun fall out of the hands of the crook,” Liccardo said.
The council’s decision came more than two years after Liccardo first unveiled his proposal for the ordinance, and after hearing from nearly 100 speakers on both sides of the debate during Tuesday night’s meeting. While supporters saw the ordinance as an “innovative, nonburdensome way to reduce gun violence,” opponents called it “financial and bureaucratic harassment” and a policy that “taxes law-abiding citizens” while “distracting the city from going after criminals.”
Liccardo initially pushed for these gun control measures in the wake of the mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in 2019 where four people, including two San Jose children, were gunned down by a man who cut through a security gate. He then reignited the effort last summer following the Bay Area’s deadliest mass shooting at a VTA rail yard.
“When we think about the horrible shooting at the VTA and so forth, I don’t pretend to know if we could have stopped it or not,” Liccardo said. “But if, in fact, we could have delivered some mental health services, there may have been a chance.”
The new ordinance, which is set to take effect in August, requires that all San Jose residents who own a gun obtain a homeowner’s, renter’s or gun liability insurance policy that specifically covers losses or damages resulting from negligent or accidental use of their firearm.
Additionally, gun owners will be asked to pay an annual fee of between $25-$35 to a nonprofit organization that will be established to manage the funds and distribute them to groups who will offer various services to residents who own a firearm or live with someone who does. Those services will include suicide prevention programs, gender-based violence services, mental health and addiction services, and firearm safety training, according to the city’s ordinance.
“There’s a lot more to gun violence than mass shootings and homicides, and that’s one of the things that gets lost,” said councilmember David Cohen. “… A large number of incidents are things that happen in the home and what we’re focused on here is to try and reinforce responsible gun ownership.”
Under the city’s vision for the ordinance, the nonprofit will send out letters through the Department of Justice database to registered gun owners who live in San Jose asking them to pay the annual fee. Once a payment is made, the nonprofit will send the gunowner a form with their proof of payment and a space on the form to fill out their insurance information. Gun owners will be required to carry or store a copy of the paperwork with their firearm, according to the mayor.
Residents who are exempted from the ordinance include sworn, active reserve or retired police officers, people who have a license to carry a concealed weapon, and low-income residents facing financial hardships.
Failure to abide by the law could result in a civil fine or temporary forfeiture of a firearm. San Jose Police Chief Anthony Mata has promised that officers will not be going door to door searching for offenders but solely be checking for proof of payment and insurance if they come across a firearm during an investigation.
The new ordinance, which officials call the Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, is expected to quickly attract legal challenges from Second Amendment advocacy organizations that have been threatening to sue the city from the start. The National Foundation for Gun Rights, for instance, sent San Jose leaders a cease-and-desist letter last July.
Most opponents argued that the ordinance punishes and taxes law-abiding gun owners while allowing criminals with unregistered guns to fly under the radar.
“This movement attacking our Second Amendment (rights) arises when a mass shooting occurs but San Jose had been unable to protect its citizens from these maddening criminals and is instead is going after middle-class law-abiding gun owners,” said resident Cindy Fulk. “Holding 55,000 gunowners responsible for the city’s failure to protect us is shameful.”
Proponents, however, argued that the ordinance gave San Jose the opportunity to take a lead and enact laws that other cities could follow to prevent harm caused by firearms in their communities.
Karen Pandula, a mother of a 20-year-old who was shot and killed in San Jose, said she believed this ordinance would make a “positive difference” and “prevent other families from suffering from gun violence.” Pandula’s daughter, Kristina, and her boyfriend, Eric Kenzo Otokawa, 21, were killed by a gunman at Otokawa’s downtown San Jose apartment in 2011.
The new ordinance is the city’s latest attempt to lessen the impact of gun violence and unintentional shootings in San Jose. The city council last year unanimously adopted a new gun law that requires retailers to video-record all firearm purchases. In 2017, city leaders narrowly approved a measure that mandates gun owners to lock up their firearms when they leave the home.
____
