The Ultimate Firearms Destination for the Gun Lifestyle

San Jose to Require Insurance and Annual Fees for Gun Owners

By now news is breaking all across the country of laws put in place just yesterday by the City Council of San Jose, California, that requires gun owners within the city limits to pay for and carry a related form of liability insurance. the Associated Press and Fox News both reported on the new requirement, and although much of the American Gun Culture is recovering from Shot Show, this new development has not gone unnoticed.

San Jose Mayor, Sam Liccardo argued in an op-ed, “The proposals include two requirements for gun owners that no city or state in the U.S. has ever implemented: the purchase of liability insurance and the payment of annual fees to fund violence-reduction initiatives.” Other comments included a prediction that the proposal would not be well received by gun rights activists.

Arguments in favor of the law posture the exercise of the 2nd Amendment as a financial burden on the city by not separating firearms ownership from violence. Mayor Liccardo implied that the right to bear arms necessarily incurs an expense that should not be left to the taxpayers, but instead levied on those who own firearms.

In addition to requiring liability insurance that fits the new laws' requirements, gun owners will face an annual fee.

For nearly a century, the national debate over firearms ownership, crime, and political posturing has been marred by both implicit and explicit forms of argumentation that rarely approach the subject from a similar foundation. The new requirements and support from Mayor Liccardo serve as an example of this rift, as his pre-emptive defense of the new law suggests that his interlocutors will use the 2nd Amendment as a shield or blunt tool, instead of viewing it as a series of beliefs that coalesce into the idea of the individual citizen's rights to own weapons, a right not granted by government, but by their right of self-preservation. Instead, the codified right of the people to bear arms is pitted against the implied cost that gun ownership has on the city. Effectively, it is the right of the people versus the utility of government.

In recent years, the concept of concealed carry insurance or memberships in organizations that address the legal fees associated with defending one's self has gained traction and attention. At the same time, many states have enacted some form of Constitutional Carry law within their borders. Both suggest that the population has elected to pursue education on firearms ownership resulting in greater awareness of infringements and concern over their individual rights.

The term concealed carry insurance is loaded, and the new law by the San Jose City Council includes stipulations that some commercial programs do not meet. For example, Right to Bear Insurance meets the requirements, whereas others do not. It's important to know your Concealed Carry Insurance options, and what they provide.

While San Jose is the only city demanding insurance and annual fees from its gun-owning citizens, the idea has been floated before across the nation.

For Coverage from Right To Bear Insurance, check them out here.


More Firearms News and Essays on Gun Culture

Enter Your E-Mail to Receieve a Free 50-Target Pack from RECOIL!

NEXT STEP: Download Your Free Target Pack from RECOIL

For years, RECOIL magazine has treated its readers to a full-size (sometimes full color!) shooting target tucked into each big issue. Now we've compiled over 50 of our most popular targets into this one digital PDF download. From handgun drills to AR-15 practice, these 50+ targets have you covered. Print off as many as you like (ammo not included).

Get your pack of 50 Print-at-Home targets when you subscribe to the RECOIL email newsletter. We'll send you weekly updates on guns, gear, industry news, and special offers from leading manufacturers - your guide to the firearms lifestyle.

You want this. Trust Us.



2 responses to “San Jose to Require Insurance and Annual Fees for Gun Owners”

  1. GomeznSA says:

    So will the coppers from SJPD be ‘required’ to pay fort his ‘insurance’ out of pocket or will the city council pay for it:
    BTW – how are they gonna ‘enforce’ this ‘mandate’ on the gang bangers?
    “maybe” someone should demand that the city council should require a ‘spoon and fork’ insurance policy on anyone that is overweight.

  2. Max Wedge says:

    Californians are a special kind of stupid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

View Comments

  • So will the coppers from SJPD be 'required' to pay fort his 'insurance' out of pocket or will the city council pay for it:
    BTW - how are they gonna 'enforce' this 'mandate' on the gang bangers?
    "maybe" someone should demand that the city council should require a 'spoon and fork' insurance policy on anyone that is overweight.

Subscribe to the Free
Newsletter