A federal judge ruled that San Jose, California can continue imposing its gun ownership insurance mandate, requiring gun owners to pay a fee to an anti-gun-violence charity group and obtain insurance. She decided that this rule does not violate the Second Amendment.

The judge found the requirement constitutional and compliant with historical traditions, which is required under the Bruen decision. The ruling may encourage lawmakers in other states to pursue similar restrictions, but the ruling is not without potential challenges, as the First Amendment claims can be revisited once the insurance fee is implemented:

U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman ruled against the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) last Thursday. She found the California city’s requirement that gun owners pay a fee to a yet-to-be-determined anti-gun-violence charity group and obtain insurance is constitutional. She ruled the regulations stand up against the Supreme Court’s new history-based test for gun laws and did not infringe on residents’ rights.

“The City has demonstrated that the Insurance Requirement is consistent with the Nation’s historical traditions,” Judge Freeman wrote in NAGR v. San Jose. “Although the Insurance Regulation is not a ‘dead ringer’ for 19th century surety laws, the other similarities between the two laws would render the Ordinance ‘analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.’

The ruling is a win for gun-control advocates who are looking for ways to restrict firearms even in the wake of 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. It allows the city to continue to attempt to implement its unique requirements, which have been scaled back significantly from when they were first introduced. The decision also boosts the odds that lawmakers in states, such as New Jersey, who’ve sought to copy the restrictions might survive court challenges as well.

Judge Freeman, an Obama appointee, also ruled the gun ownership fee was not a tax for the purpose of California law and did not need voter approval because it goes to a non-profit rather than the government.

“Because the City Manager has not promulgated regulations identifying the Nonprofit’s activities, the Court cannot determine if the Fee would fund any expressive activities and thereby remains unfit for judicial determination,” she wrote. “Additionally, Plaintiffs still have not highlighted any hardship they would suffer from the Court withholding consideration at this time. Again, here, the facts are not sufficiently concrete for the Court to apply the First Amendment.”

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms, and any law that places burdensome requirements or financial barriers on lawful gun ownership may be seen as an encroachment on this fundamental right. While the ruling states that historical laws requiring gun owners to post a bond are similar enough to justify the mandate, the comparison is debatable, as modern insurance requirements differ substantially in scope and purpose.

The gun ownership insurance mandate places an additional financial burden on law-abiding gun owners without necessarily addressing the root causes of gun violence. While proponents argue that the fee will fund evidence-based initiatives to reduce gun violence, there is no guarantee that the collected funds will be used effectively for this purpose.

Don’t get me wrong – I am a proponent of the idea that anyone who carries daily should have some form of insurance. It can come in handy if, God forbid, you are ever in the position of having to use your firearm to defend yourself — particularly with progressive prosecutors eager to throw folks in cages for protecting their lives.

Nevertheless, San Jose’s rule comes off more as a “feel-good” measure than something that will actually protect people’s rights. Moreover, law-abiding gun owners, who make up the vast majority of firearm owners, may bear the cost of actions committed by a tiny minority of criminals.

Lastly, the government should not have the authority to compel someone to pay money to any charity because it represents a violation of individual freedom and personal autonomy. While supporting charities and contributing to social causes are commendable acts, they should remain voluntary and driven by personal choice. Mandating financial contributions to specific charities undermines the principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility.