One of the newest gun regulations in the country just survived Bruen‘s history and tradition test. A federal judge has found San Jose, California’s gun ownership fee and insurance mandate constitutional. She argued the novel restriction fits with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation. And I explain for members why her logic is at least more viable than those used to uphold different hardware bans across the country. A study published this week found a short video can substantially reduce the likelihood a child will unsafely handle a gun they come across. Another federal judge upheld Oregon’s ballot-initiative-imposed magazine restrictions and permit-to-purchase scheme. And that state’s governor signed a new ban on unserialized and homemade guns. Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman takes a deep dive into the expansive new gun-control bill making its way through the Massachusetts legislature. In a bit of a surprise, it goes well beyond the previous Bruen response bills passed in New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. Plus, crime analyst Jeff Asher joins the podcast to discuss a recent downturn in the murder rate. Federal Judge Upholds San Jose Gun Ownership Tax, Insurance Mandate By Stephen Gutowski San Jose’s first-of-its-kind gun ownership insurance mandate doesn’t violate the Second Amendment, according to a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman ruled against the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) last Thursday. She found the California city’s requirement that gun owners pay a fee to a yet-to-be-determined anti-gun-violence charity group and obtain insurance is constitutional. She ruled the regulations stand up against the Supreme Court’s new history-based test for gun laws and did not infringe on residents’ rights. “The City has demonstrated that the Insurance Requirement is consistent with the Nation’s historical traditions,” Judge Freeman wrote in NAGR v. San Jose. “Although the Insurance Regulation is not a ‘dead ringer’ for 19th century surety laws, the other similarities between the two laws would render the Ordinance ‘analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.’ Click here to read more. Analysis: San Jose Gun Insurance, Tax Better Bet to Survive SCOTUS Than AR-15 Bans [Member Exclusive] By Stephen Gutowski San Jose’s novel gun ownership fee and insurance mandate were just upheld, and they have a better chance of surviving a Supreme Court challenge than many hardware bans. Last Thursday, U.S. District Judge Beth Freeman found the city’s first-of-its-kind ordinance doesn’t violate the Second Amendment. She ruled the restrictions were in line with the historical tradition of gun regulation during the Founding Era, as required under the test set out by SCOTUS in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. “[W]hether the standard was strict liability or negligence, the Nation nonetheless maintained a ‘historical tradition’ of shifting the costs of firearm accidents from the victims to the owners of the implicated firearms,” Judge Freeman, an Obama appointee, wrote in NAGR v. San Jose. A law that imposes a gun restriction that has literally never been tried before doesn’t seem like a good candidate to survive Bruen‘s history-based test. And there