Key Takeaways:
San Jose forces lawful gun owners to pay an annual “harm reduction” fee and carry liability insurance.
Criminals, police, and CCW holders are exempt—so the law targets only law-abiding citizens.
The city council holds unchecked authority to set fees, define coverage, and choose who gets the money.
It’s a calculated move to sidestep the Second Amendment through regulation, not legislation.
Enforcement depends on registries and compliance checks that raise serious privacy concerns.
Gun owners must stay informed, resist through legal means, and consider self-defense protection plans like Right To Bear.
There’s a slow, calculated shift happening in anti-gun politics. It doesn’t look like confiscation. It doesn’t sound like “bans.” It sounds like bureaucracy. San Jose’s ordinance requiring firearm liability insurance and an annual fee might seem tame to the untrained eye—but don’t be fooled. It’s not about reducing gun violence. It’s about making legal ownership expensive, confusing, and punishable.
This isn’t about stopping the next shooting. City leaders already admitted the law won’t do that. This is about signaling to other progressive cities that there’s a new way to disarm without legislation: regulate gun ownership into extinction by taxing rights and outsourcing enforcement to insurance carriers. Whether you're a gun owner in California or watching from across the country, this policy matters. Because what starts in San Jose rarely stays there.
San Jose’s Ordinance: What It Requires
San Jose now requires every resident who owns or possesses a firearm to:
Pay an annual “Gun Harm Reduction” fee.
Maintain a liability insurance policy that covers accidental or negligent discharge.
There’s no specified minimum coverage. The city manager has full authority to define that later. Likewise, the city council can set the annual fee at any amount—without limits, schedules, or caps. The entire structure is built on a foundation of undefined power delegated to people voters didn’t elect.
San Jose passed this first-of-its-kind ordinance in 2022, after it was introduced in 2019, making it the only U.S. city to mandate both firearm insurance and a recurring annual fee [(source placeholder: Ordinance No. 30716)].
"San Jose requires gun owners to maintain insurance and pay an annual fee."
The Hidden Costs and Open-Ended Fees
This isn’t just a fee. It’s a blank check signed by every gun owner in the city—without knowing the amount or where it’ll go. The so-called “Gun Harm Reduction” fee is paid annually, but no schedule is defined. The city council can change the amount whenever it wants. And the city manager? He decides how it’s collected.
The money isn’t earmarked for law enforcement or crime prevention. Instead, it goes to a nonprofit chosen by the city council. The ordinance says it must be spent on services like suicide prevention, domestic violence programs, or mental health—but doesn’t prevent the city from funneling those funds to gun control advocacy groups masquerading as public service orgs.
The fee amount and recipient nonprofit are determined annually by city officials without voter input or budgetary restraint.
"The city council sets the annual fee and designates the nonprofit recipient."
Why This Insurance Mandate Won’t Stop Crime
Even the city’s own leadership has admitted that criminals—who, by definition, don’t follow laws—won’t be affected by this ordinance. Unlawful gun owners won’t buy insurance. They won’t pay fees. And they won’t be stopped by a piece of paper.
This mandate targets only people who are already complying with the law. It burdens the responsible while leaving the dangerous untouched. So if the goal isn’t to reduce crime, what is it? The answer is control. Financial control, bureaucratic control, and—eventually—ideological control.
Mayor Sam Liccardo publicly stated that this ordinance “will not stop mass shootings” but is intended to create a culture of responsible gun ownership.
Enforcement, Registries, and Rights
For a policy like this to work, there must be a list of who owns what. That means registration. That means tracking. And that means increased surveillance over lawful citizens who exercise their constitutional rights.
San Jose’s ordinance gives law enforcement the authority to request proof of insurance and fee payment on demand. If a gun owner can’t provide it, they may be fined—or have their firearms confiscated. This isn’t hypothetical. The ordinance spells it out. It’s vehicle registration logic applied to gun ownership—except that owning a firearm is a right, not a privilege.
The ordinance allows firearm impoundment for noncompliance, even if no other crime has been committed.
Legal Loopholes and Exemptions
The law includes exemptions—but don’t assume they’re easy to claim. Peace officers and CCW holders are automatically exempt from both the insurance requirement and the annual fee. Lower-income residents may qualify for a hardship exemption, but the city manager defines the criteria—and it’s unclear what documentation or proof is required.
So while the policy claims to offer relief for the poor, it puts the burden of proof on the most vulnerable. Meanwhile, the politically protected and government-armed face no such scrutiny. That’s not public safety. That’s selective enforcement.
The ordinance defers all financial exemption standards to the city manager without codified guidelines.
Political Strategy Masquerading as Public Safety
San Jose isn’t just trying to be first—they’re trying to be copied. City leaders have framed this as a model for national “gun harm reduction,” hoping that Seattle, Portland, and New York will follow their lead. They’re testing legal boundaries. If it survives court, they’ll say it’s constitutional.
This is a political weapon dressed as a policy. If they can’t ban guns, they’ll bury them in paperwork, premiums, and penalties. It’s a coordinated strategy: drive up the cost of exercising your rights until only the wealthy and well-connected can afford them.
Gun policy scholar David Kopel said, “This is a Trojan horse—regulation framed as safety but designed to eliminate rights by attrition.”
How Gun Owners Can Fight Back
Not everyone can pick up and leave California. But you don’t need to relocate to resist. Gun owners can fight back in three critical ways:
Join the legal fight. Gun Owners of California and the National Association for Gun Rights are already involved in litigation. Support them.
Get involved locally. Testify at city meetings. Educate your neighbors. Run for office or school board.
Protect yourself financially. If you’re going to be forced to carry firearm insurance, choose a provider like Right To Bear that actually supports the Second Amendment.
FAQs
Does California require gun insurance statewide?
No. Only San Jose currently mandates liability insurance for firearm owners.
What happens if I don’t comply?
You could be fined or have your firearms confiscated by local authorities.
Am I exempt if I have a concealed carry permit?
Yes. CCW holders are currently exempt from both the insurance and annual fee.
Is there a financial hardship exemption?
Yes, but the criteria are undefined and left to the city manager’s discretion.
Can I challenge the ordinance legally?
Yes. Multiple gun rights organizations are actively pursuing legal challenges.
Final Call to Action
If you believe constitutional rights shouldn’t be auctioned off to the highest-bidding nonprofit, now’s the time to act. San Jose’s gun insurance mandate isn’t just a local nuisance—it’s a national warning shot.
Get informed. Get involved. And get protected. Explore what Right To Bear offers in defensive liability coverage and make sure your rights aren’t just preserved—but backed up with a plan. Because bureaucracy is the new battleground, and apathy is the enemy.