In a first-of-its-kind legislation, the city of San Jose passed the Gun Harm Ordinance, a law that will now require gun owners to carry liability insurance and pay an annual fee of $25. The new law is required of all gun-owning San Jose residents except for police officers and individuals with a concealed carry permit.

This new law was put forward by former mayor Sam Liccardo after the city saw a rise in gun violence, particularly the mass shooting involving a transportation employee who killed nine of his coworkers.

As detailed by the new ordinance, in the event an individual's firearm causes losses or damages either by negligent or accidental use, liability insurance is meant to cover the losses. Additionally, the annual $25 fee will be collected by a nonprofit group for firearm safety education and other services.

Expectedly, the new legislation was met with fierce criticism from gun owners and gun rights groups when it was first introduced. In their objection, several gun rights advocacy groups filed lawsuits against the proposed ordinance. However, the lawsuits that were filed before the ordinance went into effect were subsequently thrown out by U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen last summer, lawsuits against San Jose’s new law that were thrown out earlier could now largely be revived. In the Supreme Court case, the high court ruled against New York restrictions on gun owners who carry concealed weapons.

The president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Chuck Michel, shared with The Wall Street Journal that his organization plans to sue the city over the gun harm ordinance. Michel takes several issues with the new ordinance and explains the law is just another way responsible gun owners are being punished. According to the ordinance, residents who do not comply with the law could face a fine of up to $1,000.

Colorado-based National Association for Gun Rights had originally filed a lawsuit challenging the new law before it went into effect. The NAGR accused the city of encroaching on an individual's Second Amendment rights by requiring gun owners to make a payment to a non-profit group in order to exercise their rights.

Similar lawsuits brought forward by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association also fought the law before it went into effect. The two groups argued that the law violated San Jose residents' first amendment rights and the state’s constitution. Additionally, the two groups argued that the law illegally delegated the city council's taxation power to the city manager.

Leaders in San Jose continue to advocate for the benefits of the new law. The city’s former mayor shared with the local outlet, San Jose Spotlight, “Gun insurance incentivizes safer behavior,” adding, “Just as drivers with auto insurance received discounts on their premiums for having safe driving records in the 1990s, getting a car with anti-lock brakes, or in the 1980s getting a car with airbags, so too insurance can incentivize gun owners to take gun safety classes, ensure their guns have chamber-load indicators, purchase gun safes and get trigger locks.”