THIS IS AMERICA, and in America, we live in the land of the free. We have a right to reciprocity.
But what are the people of this country actually saying? And how have the laws in San Jose, California changed over the years?
Here are the facts the stats and the cold hard unfiltered responses from the people on Reddit, and some of the changes happening surrounding San Jose Gun Laws.
San Jose Gun Laws Pass
Today, if you live in San Jose you have to pay an annual fee AND carry liability insurance. Many gun owners are stating that this infringes upon their Second Amendment rights.
Another problem is the fact that many weapons in this country are illegally sourced. What do Reddit users have to say you might wonder?
While you can find strict gun laws across the country, this is the first of its kind. Many stated that it wouldn’t stop gun violence.
Reddit Sounds Off
Many on Reddit agree that this new gun law opposes their Second Amendment rights.
MaineRage stated one month ago: “Off to the Supreme Court.” This message received 10.7K likes across Reddit! This message also won some awards in the Reddit community such as ‘Murica, the Silver Award, the Helpful Award, and the Starry Award.
Another user, Bammer1386 states, “As the city official discuss which of their donor friends set up gun insurance companies overnight.” This message has 516 likes and counting.
One person, Trygolds states their concern. “If this catches on it may get the backing of some of the wealthy that own conservative politicians and stand a chance of spreading. If they think there might be some profit in it that may back it.”
Bammer1386 responded to Trygolds with: “You’re so right and it’s so ridiculous.”
Future Concerns about San Jose Gun Laws
About one month ago Freddit stated: “It will be struck down in Federal Court and SCOTUS will simply deny the appeal. This completely settled law and SCOTUS is not going to waste their time on.
They’re busy trying to come up with a half-baked argument to attempt to justify the overturning of Roe V Wade later this year.”
This message has 5.2K likes, plus a Silver and Bravo award.
One user, GunBrothersGaming seems to question the city’s intentions. “They’ll look at this – realize it violates the rights of gun owners and… it’s overturned. The city will pat itself on the back saying ‘Hey we tried’ and then go about their business.”
This comment has received 57 likes and counting.
Mcbrodie states: “Sounds like the potential for a citation and a way to add extra charges. EDIT: yeah. isn’t a good thing.” For this, he has 1.1K likes.
Enoch84 wonders if it’s a war against some. “So poor people can’t carry firearms to defend themselves.”
The Reddit Community has given them 1.8K likes and counting! They have a Starry and Wholesome Award.
A Glowing Starry Award
L-V-4-2-6 states: “This is generally the problem with ‘may issue’ states. The bureaucracy involved is inherently corruptible, and people can be denied even with a clean record just because the person presiding over the application didn’t feel like accepting it.
There’s also no accountability or penalties if they take several months over the set time to process the application. Sometimes people wait over a year just to be approved.
God forbid you have some urgency to getting a firearm to protect yourself, because these sorts of laws can help lead to results similar to what was seen with the murder of Carol Bowne in 2015.
Being able to exercise a right should never be a subjective process.”
Confusion Over the Law
Reckless-Bound states: “This is nuts. I don’t understand why Santa Clara County is allowed to ignore state law.” Reckless-Bound has 86 likes for this and growing.
Potential Problems With the Law
Whether or not they’re in favor of concealed carry, some articles find flaws with the law. This article states that there aren’t insurance policies that exist.
The ordinance requires the coverage of accidental shootings or negligence. Liability insurance for gun owners is self-defense insurance. It’s for civil or criminal proceedings from a gun owner’s use of their weapon.
They also believe that it probably won’t save a life or save taxpayer dollars.
More Controversy Over the Bill
Lightning-Knight states: “The NFA tax stamp is $200, which is a minor inconvenience in the scheme of things – any NFA item people are buying these days is likely to be at least $1000, and most get past $5000.
But at time of inception? It was the 2022 equivalent of over $4000 to get a stamp. At intention basically all it did was keep poor people from buying SBRs and stuff.”
MagicDragon212 said: “It’s probably one of the richer folks and their friends supplying the guns to the actual criminals lol.” This only received 2 likes.
Facebook Comments about San Jose Gun Laws
On the post regarding this link, people on Facebook had some things to say.
Dave Donatello states: “First of all it’s completely illegal. Secondly, it’s asinine because criminals could care less about having insurance and they’re the people using guns to commit crime…”
Jenny Hubbs states: “This is absolutely asinine. It goes against the constitution. How could this even be allowed? Where is the city’s legal counsel? What a waste of tax payers money!”
Richard Hansen is okay with the bill. He states: “I’m set up for the insurance and fee. $50.00. No big deal. It costs more to fight it. Talk to your insurance company, I did.
I can add more insurance if I decide to own a firearm too. It’s amazing how simple this was too add to my insurance bundle.
I’m insured if a firearm goes off in my vehicles on accent too. I was San Jose Compliant in a few days. “
Gun Rights Group Sues
Due to this passing, a gun-rights group, The National Association for Gun Rights and Mark Sikes sued San Jose in federal court.
His attorney, Harmeet Dhillon states, “The law is unconstitutional. 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.”
The president of the National Association for Gun Rights, Dudley Brown, states that it’s a violation of the right to bear arms and free speech.
He states, “Does anybody think a ‘murderer’ is, right now, checking to see if his homeowner’s policy covers his activities? And the possession of a firearm?”
Dhillson continues, “The Ordinance even prohibits the city from directing how the non-profit would use the funds. The one thing that is clear is that the organization will likely be dedicated to exclusively preaching the negative risks of gun ownership.”
How the Rest of the Country Has Responded
In Ohio, some lawmakers want to stop it from occurring. The main sponsors are Terry Johnson from District 14, and Theresa Gavarone from District 2.
It’s known as Senate Bill 293. It’d prohibit fees and liability insurance to possess a weapon.
You can still have concealed carry in various places across the United States. This article goes over a concealed carry reciprocity overview in New Mexico and other locations.
Another Reddit Thread
Zsreport posted a Reddit thread about a month ago. It has received 129 upvotes and 180 comments.
Andrewjoslin states, “After an intense five-hour discussion filled with emotive public comment […]”
Woof, I bet “emotive” is an understatement…”
He received 29 likes.
Another person argues that insurance will cover it.
Spooky_butts states: “Lots of companies offer insurance for the guns themselves and for negligent injuries. For example https://www.amfam.com/resources/articles/understanding-insurance/are-guns-covered-by-home-insurance.”
His comment received 16 likes.
QuelqueChoseRose states: “Gun insurance sounds like a parody argument that somene would make to illustrate how most gun control policies boil down to ‘disarm poor people.’
And you’d hear that parody and think, ‘Yeah, but that’s a bit on-the-nose there, don’t you think?'”
DemandMeNothing states: “Don’t give them any ideas! Next people will have to get crime insurance to cover any crimes they might commit if they live in high-crime areas.”
Disagreements Over the Law
An argument occurred between KuntaStillSingle and Veyron2000.
KuntaStillSingle states: “The state should be required to pay that insurance if they want to make it conditional to practice a basic constitutional right. Homeless people have the right to a gun. That can’t coexist with an insurance requirement unless Uncle Sam is taking up the bill.”
Veyron2000: “But guns aren’t free. You have to pay for them already. Insurance is no different to a gun shop increasing the price or indeed a state increasing its sales tax. Zero constitutional issue.”
KuntaStillSingle: “You are unable to distinguish a private entity charging for a service vs a state placing an arbitrary burden?….”
Veyron2000: “‘You are unable to distinguish a private entity charging for a service vs a state placing an arbitrary burden?’
An insurance requirement is hardly arbitrary, and there is zero difference to the consumer on whether a gun shop makes you pay or an insurance requirement makes you pay – the result is the same.
Either way you do not have a right to a free gun.
‘They can’t increase and individual’s sales tax because they are a gun owner’
Being a gun owner is certainly not a protected characteristic, even if some of the more delusional and far right gun owners do equate themselves with jews in Nazi Germany, so actually a random tax on gun owners is perfectly legal.
But this isn’t even that, its a well motivated reasonable public policy which will benefit the gun owners themselves.
Its basically the same reasoning people might have to someone owning a tiger: ‘well if you insist you can have it, but you’d better have insurance for when it inevitably hurts or kills someone, and I’m certainly not going to pick up the tab for the aftermath.'”
Concerns Over the Cost
Nettletooth breaks it down: “Seems pretty unconstitutional to me to condition an enumerated constitutional right on a 3rd party providing a service.
There really are a lot of novel ways to attack this. For one, 14th amendment equal protection clause. Requiring gun insurance disproportionately burdens the poor, and requiring gun insurance has a disparate impact on the ability of minorities to exercise their constitutional right to own a gun.
You need to find a way to connect this to employment or housing to engage with the civil rights act or fair housing act to have the strongest case and engage precedent regarding disparate impact, so … finding a member of a minority group who was denied a job because the cost of gun insurance disproportionately burdened their ability to carry a gun, which is a bona fide condition of employment. Private security / bodyguard.
Law burdens right to carry a gun, job has a bona fide requirement for carrying a gun, poor minorities are overly burdened pursuing these jobs due to the cost of gun insurance, employment discrimination, 14th amendment and civil rights act, win.”
San Jose Gun Laws and What People Have To Say
While there are varying opinions on San Jose gun laws, many wonder if they should have passed. Other locations are passing laws to prevent this from happening.
At the end of the day, concealed carry is still here to say across various locations. Are you wanting to learn how to get certified and get your very own concealed carry in no time?
Contact us today to discuss your concealed carry educational needs! We’re state-approved CHL trainers who have trained over 1 million people. We even have a free concealed carry training.
