Full Measure After Hours: Detailed Summary of "San Jose’s Operation Gun Control (From the Archives)"

Podcast Information:

• Title: Full Measure After Hours
• Host/Author: Sharyl Attkisson
• Episode: After Hours: San Jose’s Operation Gun Control (From the Archives)
• Release Date: June 26, 2025

Introduction: The Controversial Gun Control Law in San Jose

In this archival episode of Full Measure After Hours, host Sharyl Attkisson delves into a groundbreaking and contentious gun control initiative implemented in San Jose, California. Released on June 26, 2025, the episode examines the city's novel approach to gun regulation, its potential nationwide implications, and the heated debates surrounding its constitutionality and effectiveness.

San Jose’s Innovative Gun Control Initiative

Sam Licardo's Vision and Rationale

Former San Jose Mayor Sam Licardo, the architect behind the ordinance, provides an in-depth explanation of the law's objectives and mechanisms. Licardo emphasizes the city's commitment to reducing gun-related violence through pragmatic and constitutional means.

[01:26] Sam Licardo: "Well, like all big city mayors, we had been thinking hard about how we can reduce violence from gunshots here in our city because like every big city, we're afflicted with violence."

Licardo recounts the tragic mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, which claimed the life of 13-year-old Kayla Salazar, underscoring the urgent need for effective gun control measures.

[03:03] Licardo: "We lost hundreds of children that way. About four and a half million kids right now live in a house where a gun is kept loaded but unlocked."

Key Elements of the Law: Insurance Requirements and Funding Prevention Programs

The ordinance introduces a dual approach:

1. Insurance Mandate: Gun owners are required to obtain insurance that incentivizes the use of safety measures such as gun locks and safes.

   [03:54] Licardo: "We want insurance companies to get in this game, encourage gun owners to get gun safety locks, get gun safes, to take gun safety courses."

2. Annual Fee: A nominal $25 annual fee is imposed on gun owners, with proceeds allocated to fund local prevention programs addressing domestic violence, suicide prevention, and mental health services.

   [06:44] Licardo: "The fee is $25 per year. That's right."

Constitutional Considerations and Legal Precedence

Licardo defends the ordinance's constitutionality by drawing parallels to existing laws and historical precedents, arguing that the fee structure aligns with long-standing legislative practices.

[09:43] Licardo: "The good news is there's a lot of constitutional and historical precedent for these kinds of requirements... This is something that's existed in our country for hundreds of years."

He anticipates legal challenges but expresses confidence in the law's defensibility, noting positive feedback from the U.S. District Court.

[12:09] Licardo: "The US District Court has agreed with our position. So far, nine out of the 10 claims have been dismissed."

Opposition: Challenges and Criticisms from Gun Rights Advocates

Tim Biddle’s Critique of the Ordinance

Tim Biddle, chief counsel for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, presents a robust opposition to San Jose's gun control law, framing it as an unconstitutional tax and infringement on Second Amendment rights.

[16:25] Tim Biddle: "For us, we believe it's a tax which under California law would need voter approval that it never got. Also that it's a violation of your First Amendment rights to free speech and association..."

Biddle argues that the fee constitutes an unlawful tax since it does not correspond to services directly received by gun owners. Instead, the funds are diverted to a private nonprofit organization, which he contends violates free speech and association rights.

[20:53] Biddle: "Here the fee isn't, first of all, it's not paid to the government. It's going to be paid to this private nonprofit organization... It’s not a service you’re directly receiving."

Legal Battles and Current Status

The opposition has initiated multiple lawsuits challenging the ordinance’s legitimacy. Biddle outlines the procedural setbacks faced by opponents, including the dismissal of initial claims due to the absence of a designated nonprofit and ongoing legal maneuvers.

[17:44] Tim Biddle: "...the city did not choose a nonprofit. So we filed a request for registration of time to file our amended complaint because we still knew no more than we had known back in August when our lawsuits were dismissed."

The hearing for the amended complaint is scheduled, indicating prolonged litigation ahead.

Broader Implications and Future Outlook

Impact on Other Cities and Potential State Legislation

The San Jose ordinance has sparked interest among other mayors and states seeking alternative approaches to gun control in the wake of federal inaction. Licardo notes that several states, including California and New Jersey, have introduced similar measures, though their outcomes remain uncertain.

[10:26] Licardo: "Several states have introduced measures of some kind. Here in California, after we introduced ours, Nancy Skinner is the chair of the Budget Committee, introduced a measure here."

Biddle anticipates that San Jose’s initiative may set a precedent, encouraging other municipalities to adopt similar laws, potentially influencing state legislation.

[26:17] Tim Biddle: "Yes, I think that it probably will set a precedent that other cities follow, but it could become state law because the California Legislature is currently considering..."

Constitutional Debates and Public Reaction

The debate centers on balancing public safety with constitutional rights. Proponents like Licardo advocate for pragmatic solutions to mitigate gun violence without impinging on Second Amendment rights, while opponents like Biddle perceive the measures as overreaches infringing on individual freedoms.

[14:47] Licardo: "The harm that can be averted even within the realm of those who are law abiding... We know we can do more to reduce injuries and deaths and we have to."

Conversely, Biddle raises concerns about the fairness and practicality of imposing fees on law-abiding gun owners, arguing it unfairly targets responsible citizens while offering no benefit to them.

[20:34] Biddle: "...so I'm not getting anything in return for my payment of the fee. Those services are basically offered to the general public."

Conclusion: A Divided Path Forward

The San Jose gun control ordinance epitomizes the ongoing national struggle to balance gun rights with public safety. As litigation continues and other cities watch closely, the outcome of this initiative could significantly influence future gun regulation debates across the United States. Full Measure After Hours provides a nuanced exploration of these dynamics, offering listeners comprehensive insights into one city’s bold attempt to navigate one of America’s most divisive issues.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Sam Licardo [01:26]: "Well, like all big city mayors, we had been thinking hard about how we can reduce violence from gunshots here in our city because like every big city, we're afflicted with violence."
• Sam Licardo [03:54]: "We want insurance companies to get in this game, encourage gun owners to get gun safety locks, get gun safes, to take gun safety courses."
• Tim Biddle [16:25]: "For us, we believe it's a tax which under California law would need voter approval that it never got. Also that it's a violation of your First Amendment rights to free speech and association..."
• Tim Biddle [20:53]: "Here the fee isn't, first of all, it's not paid to the government. It's going to be paid to this private nonprofit organization... It’s not a service you’re directly receiving."

This comprehensive summary encapsulates the multifaceted debate surrounding San Jose’s pioneering gun control law, providing listeners with a clear understanding of the law's intentions, the opposition's arguments, and the broader implications for gun legislation in the United States.