City Council Approves $1,000 Fine For Refusing To Buy Gun Liability Insurance

The city council in San Jose, California, has approved a $1,000 fine for firearm-owning residents who refuse to purchase liability insurance.

San Jose passed the gun liability insurance requirement on January 25, 2022, which also included a mandate that gun owners pay $25-35 annually to a nonprofit designated by the city — described as a gun owners’ fee. According to the measure, liability insurance is designed to cover loss or damage resulting from any accidental use of the policy owner’s firearm, including death, injury or property damage.

The nonprofit receiving the fee will be set up by local health officials, and will receive approximately $1 million per year from San Jose’s 50,000 to 55,000 gun owners.

Gun rights activists, including Colion Noir, have spoken out against the liability insurance requirement.

Breitbart News reported in February that San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (D) had spoken to left-wing news outlet Slate about the city seizing firearms from individuals who refuse to comply with the gun liability insurance requirement or pay the fee.

On October 18, the San Jose city council voted to implement penalties on citizens that refuse to purchase the liability insurance, choosing to impose “up to $1,000 in fine,” Mercury News reported.

The penalty for a first offense will reportedly be $250, while the second offense will be $500 and the third offense will be $1,000.

Mayor Liccardo spoke out following the passage of the penalty fee.

“City staff is moving forward with regulations needed to implement this first-in-the-nation law to reduce gun deaths and injuries with a careful, balanced approach,” the Democrat mayor said. “I look forward to seeing this up and running next year.”

Meanwhile, a lawsuit has been ongoing against the liability insurance requirement since its passing back in January. The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and gun owner Mark Sikes are suing San Jose in federal court.

“The law is unconstitutional,” Harmeet Dhillon, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said soon after the measure passed. “The law compels people to purchase insurance that doesn’t necessarily exist and that demonstrates that this law is not a good faith attempt to do anything other than ban or burden the lawful possession of guns.”