National Association for Gun Rights, Inc. v. City Of San Jose

Background

San Jose adopted the Reduction of Gun Harm – Liability Insurance Requirement and Gun Harm Reduction Fee Ordinance. It requires San Jose residents who own or possess firearms to obtain insurance covering losses or damage from accidental firearm use and to pay an annual fee to a nonprofit selected by the City Manager. The ordinance also requires proof of compliance and allows administrative citations and fines. The opinion states that the fee amount, fines, and nonprofit had not yet been established when the court issued its order.

The National Association for Gun Rights plaintiffs challenged the insurance requirement and fee provision under the First and Second Amendments, California law, the San Jose City Charter, and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association plaintiffs challenged only the fee provision under federal and California constitutional theories, including claims involving speech and association, the Second Amendment, voter approval of taxes, and delegation of taxing power.

National Association for Gun Rights Plaintiffs

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim because it was not ripe: the nonprofit and its activities had not yet been identified, so the court could not determine whether the fee would support speech or other expressive activity. The claim was dismissed with leave to amend.

The court dismissed the Second Amendment challenge to the fee provision for lack of ripeness because the fee amount and financial-hardship exemption criteria had not been set. It also dismissed the Second Amendment challenge to the insurance requirement with leave to amend because the complaint used the former Second Amendment analysis and did not plead a claim under the framework announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.

The court dismissed the state-preemption claim without leave to amend. It concluded that the ordinance did not enter a field of firearm regulation fully occupied by California law and was not a licensing or registration scheme. The court dismissed the state voter-approval claim with leave to amend, finding that the complaint alleged the payments would go to private entities rather than to or for the benefit of a local government, while recognizing that additional facts could potentially show that the nonprofit functioned as an extension of the City. The court also dismissed the City Charter claim with leave to amend because implementing regulations could affect the analysis, particularly concerning the City Manager’s responsibilities and oversight of the nonprofit. The court denied the motion to dismiss the declaratory-judgment claim.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Plaintiffs

The court dismissed the First Amendment claim with leave to amend because the nonprofit and its activities had not been determined, making the claim unripe.

The court dismissed the unconstitutional-conditions claim with leave to amend to the extent it relied on federal Second Amendment rights. The court found that the ordinance did not currently condition firearm possession because there was no lawful basis to impound firearms. To the extent the claim relied on California constitutional rights, the court dismissed it without leave to amend, relying on the California Supreme Court’s statement that the California Constitution does not contain a right to bear arms.

The court dismissed the voter-approval claim with leave to amend because the complaint contained too few factual allegations and alleged that the fee would be paid to a designated nonprofit rather than the City. The court found the unconstitutional-delegation claim unripe because no grant or contract concerning collection of the fee existed for the court to evaluate. The final order granted dismissal of that claim with leave to amend.

Disposition and effect

Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied in part. The National Association for Gun Rights plaintiffs’ Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 were dismissed with leave to amend; Claim 3 was dismissed without leave to amend; and Claim 6 was not dismissed. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association plaintiffs’ Claims 1, 3, and 4 were dismissed with leave to amend. Claim 2 was dismissed with leave to amend as to the federal Second Amendment theory and without leave to amend as to the California constitutional theory.

The plaintiffs were ordered to file an amended consolidated complaint by February 2, 2023, and to identify which plaintiffs brought each claim. The court stated that it might decline supplemental jurisdiction over claims presented as California validation actions in any amended complaint.