DOJ Expands San Jose Lawsuit to Challenge Mandatory Gun Insurance

DOJ’s September 29 amended complaint challenges San Jose’s mandatory gun insurance, $1,591 carry-permit fee and psychological testing as violations of the Second Amendment. iStock.com/[Robert Helebrant]

The Justice Department has expanded its lawsuit against San Jose to challenge the city’s mandatory gun-owner liability insurance, asking a federal court to reconsider the reasoning that previously upheld the requirement.

The September 29 first amended complaint adds an express attack on the insurance mandate to DOJ’s challenge against San Jose’s $1,591 concealed-carry application fee and mandatory psychological testing. The federal government argues that enforcing these restrictions constitutes a pattern or practice of violating Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

San Jose has attached a recurring financial obligation to keeping a firearm. DOJ is now asking the court to subject that obligation to the constitutional scrutiny the city’s gun owners were previously denied.

Gun rights are civil rights. A city cannot escape the Second Amendment by calling its infringement an insurance requirement.

DOJ Challenges San Jose’s Gun Insurance Mandate

According to the amended complaint, San Jose requires firearm owners or possessors to maintain insurance covering losses from accidental firearm use, including death, injury and property damage. The complaint also identifies an ordinance requiring an annual “Gun Harm Reduction Fee” payable to a designated nonprofit organization.

That expands the practical stakes beyond people applying for concealed-carry permits. The insurance requirement burdens keeping and possessing firearms, bringing gun owners who simply want to keep arms for lawful purposes into the dispute.

AmmoLand reported on FPC’s challenge to San Jose’s insurance and fee scheme in 2022.

Now the United States is expressly challenging the insurance requirement through federal civil-rights enforcement. The amended complaint does not specify the annual nonprofit fee’s amount or establish that the city is currently collecting it. Its developed historical argument focuses on the insurance mandate, alongside the carry-permit fee and psychological testing.

DOJ Says the Earlier Insurance Ruling Cannot Stand Under Wolford

The filing’s most consequential argument concerns the reasoning used to uphold San Jose’s insurance requirement in earlier litigation.

DOJ identifies a 2023 district court decision that held the insurance mandate did not implicate the Second Amendment’s plain text. The department argues that the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Wolford v. Lopez abrogated that holding.

“Plaintiff brings this action to have the Court reconsider its holding,” the amended complaint states.

DOJ’s argument follows the text-and-history framework: the restrictions apply to members of “the people,” concern protected arms and burden keeping or bearing those arms. The department, therefore, argues that they are presumptively unconstitutional and that San Jose must establish a historical justification.

That matters because excluding the insurance mandate from the Amendment’s text lets the government avoid explaining how its financial condition fits the historical understanding of the right.

The Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right. San Jose does not get to redefine that right as something residents may exercise only after purchasing coverage acceptable to the government.

If the court maintains its earlier position, DOJ says it seeks further appellate review. This amended complaint presents that argument; it is not a new ruling overturning the previous decision.

Historical Surety Laws Do Not Justify Continuing Insurance

DOJ also rejects historical surety laws as an analogue for San Jose’s mandate. The complaint contrasts the limited duration of historical surety obligations with the city’s requirement to maintain liability insurance continually. DOJ argues that restrictions tied to a judicial determination of dangerousness were lifted when that determination was no longer in effect.

A limited obligation arising from an individualized threat does not establish a tradition of requiring peaceable gun owners to maintain insurance as a condition of possessing arms.

The DOJ makes a related argument against San Jose’s mandatory psychological examinations. Historical restrictions on people shown to have mental illness, DOJ argues, do not justify preemptively screening every applicant for vague psychological conditions.

According to the complaint, the psychological-testing requirement comes from SJPD policy. California law does not require it, and it is not contained in San Jose’s municipal code. Applicants pay for the evaluation themselves.

DOJ further argues that the city imposes and assesses the requirement without a court reviewing its determination that an applicant is unfit.

The $1,591 Carry Fee Remains Under Attack

AmmoLand’s original report covered DOJ’s challenge to San Jose’s $1,591 carry-permit application fee. That challenge remains in the amended complaint.  A first-time applicant pays $318 initially and $1,273 when the license is issued.

Fingerprinting, training and psychological testing require additional payments.

DOJ alleges that the municipal fee makes exercising the right impractical for middle-class citizens and impossible for low-income citizens. The department also says the resolution establishing the fee does not attempt to justify its cost.

The constitutional problem is plain: self-defense cannot become a privilege reserved for people who can afford the government’s price.

Gun Rights Enforcement Through Federal Civil-Rights Law

DOJ brings the case under 34 U.S.C. §12601, alleging a pattern or practice of law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of constitutional rights. AmmoLand has covered the same civil-rights approach in DOJ’s lawsuit against Montgomery County’s carry restrictions.

The amended complaint names the City of San Jose as the sole defendant and describes SJPD’s role in administering and enforcing the challenged requirements. DOJ seeks declaratory relief, a permanent injunction and corrective policies and systems.

The case is United States v. City of San Jose, No. 5:26-cv-10508-PCP, in the Northern District of California. This filing grants no injunction and strikes down no requirement.

But the federal government’s position is clear: putting financial and psychological conditions on a constitutional right can constitute a civil-rights violation. San Jose’s gun owners should not have to purchase the city’s permission to exercise a right they already possess.

Related: NRA, SAF Ask Supreme Court to Stop Blaming Gun Ads for a Criminal Shooting

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/fkL5T9g
via IFTTT

Federal Judge Blocks Connecticut’s Glock Ban Before It Takes Effect

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against Connecticut’s “convertible pistol” sales ban on September 30, 2026. The lawsuits remain pending. IMG Duncan Johnson

U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted a preliminary injunction blocking Connecticut from enforcing its new “convertible pistol” ban the day before the law was set to take effect.

The court considered two cases: Glock, Inc. v. Griffin and National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Griffin. Both cases challenged House Bill 5043 (Public Act 26-41), signed May 26, 2026, which expanded Connecticut’s machine-gun definition to include a “convertible pistol” fitted with a “pistol converter.” A convertible pistol is a semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be converted by hand or with a common household tool. Hammer-fired pistols and pistols with a molded shield over the trigger bar are excluded. Selling, distributing, transporting, importing, or offering such a pistol in Connecticut would have been a Class D felony.

In the first case, Glock sued the Chief State’s Attorney, the state’s attorneys for each judicial district, and DESPP Commissioner Ronnell A. Higgins. In the second case, NSSF, Shadow Systems, and Blue Trail Range sued the same defendants except Higgins.

Both cases claim that the new law violates the Second Amendment under Bruen and Heller. Heller said firearms in common use cannot be banned. Glocks are the most common style of handgun in the country. The plaintiffs argue that the law violates Supreme Court precedent.

They also claimed that the law could not survive a Bruen analysis. The first step of a Bruen analysis is whether the conduct is protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court said the only two questions at this step are whether the plaintiffs are members of “the people” and whether the arm is bearable. Both are clearly true, so the state conceded on these points. Because of this reasoning, the conduct is presumptively protected, and the burden shifts to the state to prove, using historical analogues, that the law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

In this step, the “how and why” matter. The historical law’s goal must be similar. This is why courts usually reject Founding-era gunpowder laws.

The state offered two historical analogues: Founding-era “proving” and inspection laws (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts) and the tradition of restricting machine guns. Dooley rejected that combination on this record. Proving laws were meant to ensure a gun was safe before sale, not to block later criminal conversion. Unconverted cruciform-trigger handguns are popular self-defense arms. Machine gun conversion devices (MCDs) and already-converted guns are already illegal. The court also noted the state’s inability to explain why a gun made September 30 needs no extra regulation, but the same gun made October 1 is too dangerous to sell.

Judge Dooley also found that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm. This is damage that cannot be remedied by monetary means. Pre-October 1 inventory can still be sold, but that does not fix lost law-enforcement customers (who are not exempted), lost goodwill, broken contracts, advertising restrictions, and the Second Amendment injury to Connecticut residents. Blue Trail Range said it had about $25,000 of affected pistols, expected to sell through them by the end of October, and had already stopped ordering more.

The plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the Second Amendment claim, irreparable harm, and that the remaining Winter factors favor an injunction. The motions are granted. A separate implementing order will follow.

Dooley emphasized that this is on a compressed record and could change after fuller development. She did not decide whether Glock Slimline or Series VI models fall outside the statute; defense counsel said that review was underway.

The court addressed only the Second Amendment claim, not the plaintiffs’ other constitutional theories. Those other theories will be addressed during the merits arguments, because the plaintiffs needed to succeed on only one theory for the preliminary injunction to issue. The state is expected to appeal and seek a stay.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/mwGCE7k
via IFTTT

Gun Prohibtionist’s Power Grab Exploits Rare Airgun Tragedy for Political Points

Garrett’s Law would bring certain airguns under the federal Gun Control Act, expanding ATF’s regulatory reach. iStock-1205088959

“Modern airguns can be powerful enough to cause serious injury or death, yet face far fewer safeguards than traditional firearms simply because they use compressed air instead of gunpowder,”  a September 25 press release by Democrat Rep. Kevin Mullin argues. “To close this dangerous gap[he] introduced Garrett’s Law today after one of his constituents lost her son to suicide involving a high-powered airgun.”

“Garrett’s Law… would designate lethal airguns as firearms under the purview of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,” the release explains. “This would ensure that they receive the same common-sense gun safety protections as traditional firearms, such as background check and serialization requirements.”

The effort has the backing of GIFFORDS, which advocates to “treat non-powder guns like the potentially lethal weapons they are,” and of March for Our Lives.

The bill proposes to amend Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, to include “any lethal air gun,” defined as:

“[A]ny weapon (other than a weapon that exclusively expels a paint-filled pellet) that expels a pellet through the force of air or gas pressure if that projectile can be one of the following calibers and feet per second, or if the weapon is otherwise designated as a lethal air gun by the Attorney General, through rulemaking, as capable of causing death:  (A) A .177 caliber pellet expelled at a muzzle velocity of not less than 800 feet per second. (B) A .22 caliber pellet expelled at a muzzle velocity of not less than 500 feet per second. (C) A .25 caliber pellet expelled at a muzzle velocity of not less than 450 feet per second. (D) Any metallic pellet above .25 caliber.”

That leaves a lot of room for any future Democrat AG to expand things. A simple change that comes to mind would be to make the benchmark “capable of causing injury” (“You’ll shoot your eye out, kid!”), which would bring Daisys and Red Ryders into the fold and could further be exploited to enact bans without “grandfathering.”  Note the Democrat-controlled states of New Jersey and Rhode Island classify non-powder pellet and BB guns as firearms, with attendant controls.

Because he’s in a safe district and can do and say whatever he wants without fear of a Republican taking his seat, what’s prompting Mullin to act on this now is fair to speculate on. By his press release saying, “One of his constituents,” the gun prohibitionist mantra “If it saves one life” comes to mind, which in turn merits determining how severe is the problem to warrant a major change to federal gun laws.

The danger can’t be quantified because there is no database that tracks total air gun fatalities or suicides. What can be gleaned suggests they represent a minute fraction of overall statistics.

From a 2019 National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine abstract:

“Presented is a rare case of a modern, high-powered air weapon used in a homicide. A literature search yielded reports of only three previous murders by air weapon in the United States…”

Another NIH study from the same year concludes, “One person each year dies from an air powered weapon injury in the United Kingdom.”

A more recent 2025 article in The Atlantic Journal of Medical Science and Research cites the case of a 50-year-old man who died as a result of multiple air rifle injuries. Autopsy revealed seven pellet wounds, most likely caused by five shots.” That he could just as easily been clubbed is left unsaid.

Preventable tragedies, no doubt, but hardly through legislation to be imposed and enforced on all. Case in point is the man the proposed law is named after, who, per Mullin’s presser, “struggled with mental health during the pandemic and was prohibited from possessing a firearm by law. Yet, sadly, when his condition worsened, Garrett legally purchased a lethal airgun online and used it to take his own life.”

It’s curious how the political left obsesses over suicide when it’s done with a gun, but champions it when other means are used. In fact, there are more state-assisted deaths in lower-population Canada than homicides with firearms in the U.S.

Unsurprisingly, the man’s mother is all in on new restrictions on everyone else while acknowledging “the countless efforts made by his community.” In other words, the self-destructive aberrant behavior her son had manifested from his “late onset psychosis” were known to her and to others for some time, and yet evidently, he had access to all kinds of potentially lethal instruments, not just an air rifle.

A truism is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. After all, the three greatest mass murders in this country were ostensibly committed with box cutters, fertilizer, and matches. How much more does it make sense to restrict those than it does air guns, and yet proposing to do so would rightly be met with well-earned derision for being unworkable, offensive to freedom, and ridiculous.

In his case, it’s a pretty sure thing that perennial gun-grabber Mullin is just doing this as an “In your face!” to gun owners for attention, and for approval from those ignorant enough to vote for him. Fortunately, the GovTrack federal legislation website prognosis says there’s a “1% chance of being enacted,” which means the bill is going nowhere – for now.

Let enough gun owners stay home so that Republicans lose the midterms and lose again in ’28, and that will change.

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

---

from https://ift.tt/bHsWPS6
via IFTTT