The city of West Hollywood is exploring a plan that would require all gun owners to carry liability insurance—a move Second Amendment advocates warn is the latest attempt to price everyday Americans out of exercising their constitutional rights.

The proposal mirrors failed efforts in other deep-blue jurisdictions like San Jose, where mandates have been challenged in court and criticized as legally dubious. But that’s not stopping West Hollywood officials from jumping on the bandwagon.

Under the plan, legal gun owners would be forced to purchase and maintain liability insurance, presumably to cover costs related to negligent discharges, theft, or accidents. But there’s just one catch: the insurance industry doesn’t actually offer standalone firearm insurance policies.

That hasn’t deterred city leaders or anti-gun activists. Their pitch, according to local reports, is to model the mandate after automobile insurance—arguing that if drivers need coverage to operate a car, gun owners should be similarly burdened.

Critics see it differently. “This is nothing more than an underhanded way to punish responsible gun owners,” said one gun rights advocate. “They’re trying to regulate gun ownership out of existence with fees, red tape, and now insurance that doesn’t even exist.”

It’s the latest front in California’s war on gun rights. West Hollywood recently banned licensed gun stores from opening within city limits, and other cities in the state have passed ordinances requiring annual registration fees or mandatory gun lock purchases. In each case, the goal appears to be the same: create enough financial and bureaucratic pressure to make legal gun ownership a luxury only the wealthy can afford.

Legal experts are already questioning the constitutionality of West Hollywood’s insurance idea. The Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen made clear that Second Amendment rights cannot be restricted by laws lacking historical precedent. Liability insurance mandates—created in modern times without any founding-era equivalent—could easily be struck down.

“This is pure financial coercion,” said a California-based constitutional attorney. “You can’t make someone buy a fake product as a condition for exercising a right the Constitution guarantees.”

Even those who support broader gun restrictions have raised eyebrows at the plan’s practical shortcomings. The proposed law doesn’t define what kind of insurance is required, how it would be enforced, or what penalties gun owners might face. Nor does it address the fundamental issue: there’s no standard policy for this kind of insurance on the market.

That hasn’t stopped progressive city leaders from pushing ahead. Much like with other recent California gun control efforts, the symbolism seems to matter more than the substance.

Opponents are already mobilizing. Grassroots Second Amendment groups are preparing legal challenges should the measure move forward. They argue the plan would disproportionately impact working-class gun owners, veterans, and minority communities—all of whom may rely on firearms for self-defense but can’t afford new layers of costs.

“It’s not about safety,” one local gun store owner said. “It’s about making it so difficult and expensive to own a gun legally that most people just give up. Meanwhile, criminals don’t follow these laws anyway.”

If West Hollywood enacts the insurance mandate, it’s expected to face swift lawsuits—and the eyes of the country will be watching. Gun control groups are already pressuring other blue cities to follow suit. Second Amendment groups, meanwhile, hope a federal judge will put a quick stop to what they call a “backdoor ban.”

In the meantime, West Hollywood officials appear undeterred. With no real insurance options available, and plenty of constitutional red flags waving, the city is preparing to gamble taxpayer resources on a doomed legal fight—all in the name of virtue signaling.