Buying a Gun? San Jose Jumps on BIG BROTHER Bandwagon

First, a Liability Insurance Mandate for Gun Owners and Now Video-Recorded Gun Purchases

First it was the Mayor of San Jose, but now the full City Council has jumped on his “big brother” bandwagon by passing a new gun law that requires retailers to video-record all firearm purchases.  They have now stepped full into the limelight of anti-gun lunacy, celebrating the fact that they are somehow the first city to head down this road. And no surprise – GOC’s phones are ringing off the hook with media requests for comment – we are happy to oblige on this latest anti-gun blunder.

The new ordinance was unanimously passed by the City Council on Tuesday, June 15, 2021 and supposedly targets the non-issue of straw purchases, which is when someone illegally buys a gun for another person.   Mayor Sam Liccardo proclaimed that “We know a significant number of crooks and gangs get firearms through straw purchasing.” There is no evidence that this is true.  What is true, however is that the overwhelming number of firearms used in crimes are stolen – which makes sense (the common kind) because – as a general rule, criminals just don’t seem to care about breaking the law.  Thus, the law is a solution in search of a problem that’s not there.

Plus, the privacy implications are enormous; the San Jose ordinance thoroughly ignores these concerns in that it requires the camera to be on the entire time the business is open. As such, the cameras will record ALL sales whether firearms or ammunition related or not.  Who will have access to the videos?  Must they be kept in a secure area?  What precautions must be taken to make certain the videos cannot be made public – or hacked? Given that the ordinance requires the parking lot to be continuously monitored during business hours, what else – and who else will be recorded? How will customers of neighboring businesses be impacted – as they will not be aware they are being videotaped?  And to add salt into an unconstitutional wound, the City Manager is required to make recordings available to law enforcement without a warrant, court order or subpoena. Hello 4th Amendment! 

And a curious question – did San Jose’s elected leaders possibly consider how such privacy issues could impact the many Leftists who are still in the closet about owning guns? There’s been an incredible spike in brand-new gun owners over the past year – how will the politically-correct liberals out there feel about having their faces videotaped – and from all angles no less! This is a bad idea all around and it’s no surprise that concerns about confidentiality derailed a similar proposal in 2016 when Assemblyman Kevin McCarty introduced AB 2459 in the Legislature.

Both the San Jose Mayor and City Council have crowned themselves with sovereign-type powers that go far beyond their scope of authority – taking a page from Governor Newsom’s playbook.  With this and the myriad of other new gun control decrees (additional taxes, liability insurance mandates) San Jose has opened themselves up to a host of legal challenges.  This is deeply unfortunate because it’s going to cost a lot of good people a lot of money.  The law-abiding gun owners in San Jose don’t deserve to be treated in such a highly discriminatory manner and neither do those in the pro-gun community who will be forced to fund lawsuits.

GOC encourages every supporter of the 2nd Amendment to become armed and informed – work with us to make sure this type of tyrannical behavior doesn’t invade your community and stand with us as we defend the Constitution.



  1. K. Spencer on June 17, 2021 at 2:38 pm

    What’s next? Will all voters have to be identified, photographed and show proof of liability insurance at the polls in the event their vote results in electing tyrannical assholes like Liccardo? After all, it is self-evident that a significant number of crooks and gangs get elected to offices through straw voting! Yeah,… that infringement upon a constitutional right won’t fly either! Not quietly to be sure and you know who would be screaming the loudest.

    The laws on the books are wholly sufficient if the offense committed against the people is so addressed. Nothing that occurred in that bus yard from the moment the crazed killer gained entry is not addressed by current State law. The basic one being – committing the act of cold-blooded murder.

    With his VTA credentials to gain entry past the gates, they are lucky he didn’t think to try a McVeigh and blow up the whole place using a truck loaded with simple fertilizer. I suppose if that had occurred, Liccardo would want to install cameras and require liability insurance for anyone shopping at the local nursery. “Sorry, due to its high yield nitrogen content the City of San Jose is limiting purchases of Miracle Grow to 6oz per customer per 30 days.” And, you have to pay to take (and pass) a fertilizer handling test so that you can be issued a Fertilizer Safety Certificate before we can then run (and you pay for) a background check on you for each purchase made. My word, we can’t let just anyone buy fertilizer! What if they harbored ill intent? God, what a jackass the SJ Mayor! He really has a problem because he thinks one sniff up an ass is just not enough. He wants to live up everyone’s ass. The problem is; that even so dwelled, that does nothing to protect the people from those who have evil hearts and criminal intentions.

  2. Wayne on June 17, 2021 at 5:16 pm

    The evidence of significant criminal straw purchase of guns is easy to find, and by ignoring it you deeply undercut your argument.

    For example in 5 minutes of google searching I found and read

    In we read (based on Bureau of Justice statistics) that “Of persons incarcerated during the 1990s for gun crimes, 12% to 19% of those in state prisons and 19% of those in federal prisons purchased their guns personally from a gun dealer or pawnshop. An unknown but substantial number of others illegally use surrogate or “straw” purchasers to acquire guns from licensed retailers indirectly.” These are the cases where a video link to the gun purchase might help with crime-solving, or with obtaining a conviction.

    As to theft being the channel: “” quotes ATF agents and studies on the prevalence of straw purchase – and points out that gun acquisition through theft is the *least* likely modus, based on a survey of criminals: “…Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it.”

    5% is not “overwhelming” (IMO). The number certainly isn’t definitive, but such “evidence” exists and should be accounted for.

    Now, your concern for the privacy implications is (IMO) well-founded: access to the video should definitely require a warrant or at least solid bit of probable cause in urgent circumstances.