San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo
San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (AP Photo/Nic Coury)
Previous Post
Next Post

From the Firearms Policy Coalition . . .

Attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the City of San Jose’s ordinance requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance and pay a fee in order to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. FPC’s complaint argues that the mandate violates both the First and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. A copy of the complaint in Glass v. City of San Jose can be found at

“The government may not impose a fee on the choice to exercise a constitutional right. But that is exactly what the Ordinance does,” the lawsuit states. “The government also may not restrict firearm ownership in ways that are wholly unknown to the Nation’s history and that fail entirely to advance the government’s asserted goals. Novelty is not a virtue here, and neither are restrictions for restriction’s sake. But the Ordinance is concededly novel, and it will neither improve public safety nor reduce the costs of gun violence. It will only burden those who already follow all firearm laws. Even City officials admit that, ‘[o]f course, criminals won’t obey insurance or fee mandates.’”

“The fee provision also violates the First Amendment,” the complaint further argues. “The Ordinance directs the City Manager to designate a nonprofit organization that will spend firearm owners’ money on ‘programs and initiatives’ to ‘mitigate’ the supposed ‘risk’ of the ‘possession of firearms…’ The fee provision thus forces firearm owners to associate with an organization of the City’s choosing and subsidize expressive activities of the organization’s choosing, in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Janus v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees.”

FPC seeks a judgment declaring the Ordinance unconstitutional on its face, permanently preventing the City of San Jose and its agents from enforcing the Ordinance. The lawsuit also seeks the awarding of damages for any loss attributable to the Ordinance incurred before final judgment, attorney’s fees, and any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

“Governments cannot run roughshod over the constitutional rights of their People simply because they do not care for the rights they choose to exercise,” said FPC Vice President of Programs Adam Kraut. “San Jose’s gun-owner insurance requirement is a demonstrable attack on a right exercised that lies outside of the policy preferences of its Government. It is unfathomable to think that the elected officials of San Jose believed such an ordinance would survive a constitutional challenge, particularly when they admit that criminals will not obey the mandates contained within, leaving only the peaceable People of San Jose to be burdened by the ineptness of its Government. We look forward to aggressively litigating this matter on behalf of individuals in San Jose and striking down this unconstitutional Ordinance.”

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs include Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group, and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and Joseph O. Masterman of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.

Individuals who would like to join the FPC Grassroots Army or donate to support this lawsuit or other programs to protect and restore the right to keep and bear arms should visit For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit and follow FPC on InstagramTwitterFacebookYouTube.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “FPC Sues City of San Jose Challenging City’s Gun Owner Liability Insurance Mandate”

    What’s the point of government power, if you can’t abuse it?

      • They make another illegal Deprivation of Rights law under 18-241-242 requiring proof of insurance at the time you fill out your 4473 and if they get away with that, they’ll require, through illegal administrative fiat mandate, that FFLs allow access to their records for data bases on all FFL records to ascertain previously recorded purchases and cross-reference them with current driver’s licenses or Social Security info and send out a letter to all available addresses to reply with proof of firearms insurance or have your driver’s license, License and/or your SS benefits revoked or anything else they can revoke or leverage to illegally force you to comply!
        What the Hell, as long as we’re Not indicting them for Deprivation of Rights Violation Felonies, They’ll just keep on Truckin’.
        Great Work FPC!

  2. The law is an obvious intent to discourage gun ownership and will do nothing to address the costs of “gun violence.” First, any policy would have to be a liability policy, and as a matter of law, no liability policy can insure against intentional misconduct. The “insured” under a liability policy is the policy holder, not the alleged victim. Consequently, there will be no coverage for the vast majority of criminal shootings within City limits, even assuming the shooter bought a policy. As noted, criminal will not be purchasing these policies anyway, nor registering their gats with the City. Second, there are very few unintentional shootings in the US annually, and I must assume that the number of such shootings in San Jose (and for which coverage might be provided) are vanishingly small. Finally, homeowners/renters insurance should provide liability coverage for accidental shootings.

    So what is the point, you ask? “WE HATE YOUR GUNS AND WE HATE YOU!”

  3. First they claim having insurance for cases arising from the use of a firearm was murder insurance. Neglecting of course if you act without justification the insurance is void. Now they mandate you be insured for intentional acts not of self defense.

    How about this for a novel idea? Leave us alone, period. Go after the criminals, whether they be blue, red, green or any their color of the spectrum or any of the 107 different sexual identities.

  4. But Wait! There might be a Great Side Gig BIZ opportunity here? In this Bizarre, totally corrupted and convoluted Legal System we know that active street criminal enterprise is not only never prosecuted and gang bangers never obey any gun laws, but they still get caught shooting or killing people and have to go through the system, right? You know, Due Process still exists for Organized Gang Crimes, even though it doesn’t apply for Jan 6 citizen protesters petitioning for a Redress of Political Prisoners.

    So Let’s start a Private insurance company called… OUT IN NO TIME BANGER Coverage, LLC?

    And since the current Marxist criminal justice system is now letting them go on severely reduced bonds, or NO bonds at all, all they need is a really Big Gun Defense Lawyer instead of the standard ‘in bed with the prosecutoer PD’ free defense, right? Then they’ll be able to get off scot-free on and and Charges without copping a Plea!

    We could offer a package deal for notorious Street Gangs like the Crypts, Bloods, Chicago Vice Lords, Latin Kings, MSG 13, and all the Rest! This is a huge customer Market base out there ready and waiting. Advertise in NRA Magazine Firearms News and the ACLU website and Charge them through the nose for premiums because they won’t mind at all with all the dope money they make?

    They can Brag about how ‘Badass’ ‘Gangsta’ they are by the high premiums they pay.

    Why Not? The G makes big bucks with on going Criminal Enterprise. Why can’t anybody else do it? Ya gotta make a legal decent buck somehow in this Commie Inflationary economy?

    • i would imagine premiums for prohibited persons to be fairly steep.
      but can’t you do better than o.i.n.t.b.?

    • Man, making me kinda wish I had gone on to law school…looks like a way to extract some of that leftist cash. Except, darn it, all the cash they have is whatever they extract from us…

  5. 𝐈 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 $𝟏𝟐,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐚 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐦𝐲 𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞, 𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝟏𝟏 𝐭𝐨 𝟏𝟐 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬 𝐚 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐞. 𝐈 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐲 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐈 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭…𝐆𝐎𝐎𝐃 𝐋𝐔𝐂𝐊….
    =====))> 𝐰𝐰𝐰.𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐤.𝐜𝐨𝐦

  6. This is old news. The Second Amendment Foundation announced that Sanjosie threw in the towel and is going to strike the city ordinance from the list of rules and regs. They also agreed to pay the SAF’s attorney $10,000 in attorney fees for his time and effort. The Sanjosie city should be fired for not advising the city council that Kallyfornicadia is a state preemption state wherein the state reserves to itself alone the power to make laws affecting firearms and excludes cities from that power. If he did so advise the city council and they went ahead anyway they should be recalled for wasting $10,000 in attorney fees in a case where the ordinance should never have been enacted in the first place. Winning such a case is like catching starving fish in a small wading pool. It looks to me as if FPC is trying to piggy-back themselves on the SAF’s action. It is moot. They won’t get any attorney fees for a moot case filed in court. It will be dismissed and FPC will have wasted precious funds in a moot action.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here