“San José’s Landmark Gun Control Law Cleared of Legal Challenges, Set to Move Forward”
San José’s landmark gun control law is now free from legal challenges for the first time since its inception, thanks to a recent ruling by an appeals court. This decision, however, may prompt increased scrutiny of the ordinance in the future.
Supporters of the law believe this legal victory could encourage other cities to implement similar regulations aimed at addressing local gun violence, especially as national action has stalled for some time. Tamarah Prevost, an attorney representing San José in the gun ordinance case, noted, “There are other municipalities that have tried to model ordinances after ours or are contemplating it and have been watching this really carefully.” She expressed hope that San José’s success would inspire other municipalities to adopt creative solutions to the complex issue of gun violence.
San José’s Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance, the first of its kind in the country, mandates that gun owners carry liability insurance and pay a fee for gun violence prevention initiatives. The insurance requirement took effect in January 2023, while plans for the fee—expected to be around $25 annually—are still being finalized amid ongoing litigation.
In July 2023, a federal court dismissed the National Gun Rights Association’s objections to the insurance mandate, ruling that the regulations align with the nation’s “historical traditions” regarding gun ownership. The court also dismissed the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s challenge to the fee, which it argued constituted an “illegal tax” on gun owners. After the dismissal, the association appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which upheld the dismissal on September 10, stating it was premature to challenge the fee since it hasn’t yet been implemented. The judges noted, “No real threat of injury currently exists because the city has not set a precise collection date for the fee.”
Former San José Mayor Sam Liccardo, a key proponent of the ordinance, expressed satisfaction with the ruling, hoping it would bolster other local leaders’ efforts to combat gun violence. Liccardo revealed that many mayors have approached him, expressing a desire to implement similar regulations pending the outcome of San José’s litigation.
Tim Bittle, chief counsel for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, acknowledged the appeals court ruling but maintained that the fee is unjustified. “It bothers me that it’s on the books, that it’s still enacted, but I guess…it’s like hibernating,” he remarked. Bittle confirmed that his organization would closely monitor the city’s actions and is prepared to revive litigation once the fee is implemented.
Both Prevost and Liccardo anticipate future legal challenges as the ordinance is enforced, but they remain confident these efforts will not succeed. Liccardo stated, “Pioneering efforts are hard, particularly when there are powerful groups on the other side.” He added that many similar measures have failed in state legislatures due to pressure from the gun lobby.
As Liccardo runs for Congress to replace Rep. Anna Eshoo in the 16th District, he believes that similar changes may not be achievable at the federal level. However, he hopes to advocate for more manageable reforms if elected. “I’ll be going into a body where being able to do what we’ve done in San José is not on the table today. It’s really an opportunity for other city halls and state legislatures,” he said.
