San Jose Reminds Gun Owners of New Year’s Day Deadline to Comply with Gun Insurance Law

To ensure compliance with San Jose’s new gun insurance ordinance, gun owners in San Jose need to have an insurance policy for their firearms that includes losses or damages from accidental use by next year.

The city of San Jose announced Friday that gun owners. must have homeowners, renters or gun liability insurance coverage in place by Jan. 1,, and be ready to pay a $25 fee that will be used for city initiatives to reduce gun harm.

Firearm owners are encouraged to apply for a city of San Jose insurance attestation form to provide proof of insurance coverage.

The fee, which will be used to conduct services like firearm safety education, suicide prevention services and violence prevention programs, does not have a set date for collection, and is tentatively set to be $25.

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo said everyone who drives a car understands the importance of insurance to protect accident victims and incentivize safety. He said gun insurance can “compensate victims who need care, and encourage gun owners to use gun safes, deploy trigger locks and take gun safety classes.”

“That's not insignificant in a country where 4.6 million children live in a home where a gun is kept loaded and unlocked,” Liccardo said in a statement.

The ordinance follows other efforts that the city claims has led to reduced gun violence in San Jose, such as initiating gun violence restraining orders, banning unserialized "ghost guns" and cracking down on illegal purchases.

More information on the gun harm reduction ordinances can be found here.




  1. Why? It’s not constitutional and will be thrown out by then. On top of that, it’s written such that “low income” people are an exception, but yet never properly defined “low income”, so if we’re basing this on the qualification of what is “middle income” – that means anyone making less than ~$120K is low income, right? Or is the city just going to make up its own rules?
    This was a dumb knee jerk law, which didn’t even answer some of the questions about the Gilroy garlic shooting (was there actually two assailants like victims stated? Was one recording the other shooting emulating Brenton Tarrant? were they apart of the Black Sun Cult? were FBI or local authorities aware of their intentions?) – none of these problems were or are resolved by this unnecessary gun law which won’t get past supreme court.

  2. A warning to San Jose residents that think complying with this
    unconstitutional Firearms Fee & Insurance scheme is a good idea.
    Do you trust San Jose (or a non-profit) with safeguarding your personal information?

    Think twice before you provide any data regarding your 2nd Amendment constitutional rights to CA local or state officials.

    Just this year CA AG Rob Bonta published owner’s addresses for criminals to obtain firearms.

    June 28th, 2022
    “Massive Trove of Gun Owners’ Private Information Leaked by California Attorney General”

    “The office of CA’s AG Rob Bonta released the Personal Information of Thousands of
    CA gun owners and concealed carry permit holders to the public this week”

    “The DOJ leak compromised the private information of thousands of Permit Registrants between 2011 and 2021.
    Bonta’s office also expressed concern that data from 5 other gun registries,
    the Assault Weapon,
    Dealer Record of Sale,
    Firearm Certification System, and
    Gun Violence Restraining Order registries, could have been compromised.”

    “We believe that AG Rob Bonta is either massively incompetent, incredibly negligent, or willing to criminally leak information that he does not have the authority to leak,”

    “The information, taken from the state’s database of concealed carry permit holders, included thousands of gun owners
    Date of Birth,
    License Plate Numbers
    when their concealed carry permit was issued, and what type of permit it was. ”

    “The leaked private information of gun owners is likely to increase the risk criminals will target their homes for burglaries
    – something the state’s dashboard reports happened 145,377 times in 2020 alone.”

    AG Rob Bonta is another Prop 47 supporting Soft-on-Crime official that needs to be voted out this NOV.

  3. This law will not affect drug dealers and gang members, most of whom have low incomes because nearly all of their income comes from criminal activities and is therefore unreportable. Is a tech worker who makes $250000/year and lives in a $2 million home going to be committing “survival crimes” or killing strangers for sport? If criminals cannot make their victims whole again, then use them for forced labor until their debt is paid. Don’t place honest productive people on the hook for damages.

  4. This is both unconstitutional and discriminatory. Liccardo, who’s an attorney, should be ashamed leaving this as his legacy. Won’t look good when he’s appointed to Feinstein’s seat by Newsom sometime after November 8. Or maybe it does to those who would vote for him in later elections. “At least I tried something.”

  5. Anyone who registers their gun when they purchase it (which is how the City of SJ finds the owners) will not use it for criminal purposes. This is another one of the Progressive/Lefty ordinances… might make them feel good, but it will not do squat in terms of reducing violence.

  6. Anti-American low-lifes in office, pandering to those constitutional and moral failures (too many and growing in California!) with similar sentiments — your seditious behavior is scummy, as it is all too often. Leave better people, who prefer to be true as well as better Americans, alone, and leave the rest alone, too.

  7. “ $25 fee that will be used for city initiatives to reduce gun harm.”

    That isn’t what happened!! We watched the whole Council meeting and I can provide the video.

    Liccardo said:
    1). None of the money will go to the City.
    2). The fee would go to a nonprofit (there wasn’t one formed by that meeting).
    3). The nonprofit could use the money collected any way they wanted to.
    4). The nonprofit will have no (ZERO) accountability to the City of San Jose.

    Matt Mahan voted yes to approve the ordinance (on legal gun owners) and was silent when illegal guns and ghost guns were brought up by CM Dev Davis.

  8. My take on the stance that nobody should comply is that there are probably private, for-profit insurance companies involved here. Talk about a scam of an ‘industry’. It’s more like wagering… the ‘insurance’ company is betting that nothing will happen so they never have to pay out. And, do you trust your private info in the hands of a profit-motivated company can sell, then re-sell, and sell yet again, your personal details? And here you other commenters are, crying about the $25 fee. Cry me a river.

  9. The law says that “gun owners in San Jose need to have an insurance policy for their firearms that includes losses or damages from accidental use.” It says nothing about use of firearms by criminals. Law-abiding gun owners still account for a vast majority of the accidental injury and death from firearms, and they should be required to have insurance to pay their victims.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *