Nelson Lund has been one of the leading law professors in the right to keep and bear arms movement. I very much agreed with his paper that police use needed to be looked at when evaluating restrictions, and believe that is a valuable standard to promote for review of gun control measures. That’s why I’m quite disappointed to see he once endorsed the idea that we can introduce severe financial burdens on the exercise of a right. Granted, this is from a 1987 paper, and perhaps Professor Lund has changed his mind since, but it’s difficult for me to see how an insurance requirement is respectful of the Second Amendment. What other right to we require one to bear insurance to exercise? Insurance companies are in the business of assessing risk, and then essentially betting you that what you’re insuring against will never happen. That risk is going to be higher for someone who’s poor, and lives in a neighborhood they are more likely to need to defend themselves. An insurance measure like this would make it nearly impossible for the poor to exercise their rights under the Constitution, while middle class suburbanites would likely find premiums affordable. I don’t see how that can possibly be constitutional.