To The City Council of San Jose….

 Ladies and gentlemen,

There is a reason that annual fees have not been imposed on firearms owners in other cities: such fees have already been declared unConstitutional.  

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) ruled that municipal ordinances and state laws that burden a Constitutional right are unConstitutional on their face.  While the case specifically address First Amendment issues, the precedent it sets applies equally to Second Amendment issues:

“4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

“5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

“6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

“7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

“8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116i.”

The right to own firearms unencumbered by ownership fees is as much about the First Amendment right to freedom of expression as it is about actual firearm ownership.  Firearm ownership conveys a point of view - one with which this council takes issue and finds “… unpopular, annoying, or distasteful.”

The law does nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, nor will it serve to reduce suicide. The required insurance and annual fee simply shift the costs resulting from criminal activity, who will not abide by this law, to the law abiding.  In the long run, the law will be more costly to litigate on Constitutional grounds than the city will be able to afford. 

Mandatory Firearm Insurance And “Modest” Gun Fees….

 San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo has proposed both, reasoning that these two requirements will help diminish “gun violence”.

His proposals are wrong on two counts.

First, the people most likely to cause the injuries/deaths - criminals - are also the LEAST LIKELY to purchase the mandatory insurance on their illegally owned firearms.  In other words, the law abiding are once again required to foot the bill for the results of crimes committed by criminals.  Shifting costs to the law abiding is an eminently fair solution.  

Not.

Second, there is a reason that annual fees have not been imposed on firearms owners: such fees have already been declared unConstitutional.  Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) ruled that municipal ordinances and state laws that burden a Constitutional right are unConstitutional on their face.  While the case specifically addresses First Amendment issues, the precedent it sets applies equally to Second Amendment issues:

“4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.”

In the long run, the required insurance shifts the cost to the law abiding, and the law will be more costly to litigate on Constitutional grounds than the city will be able to afford.