The Supreme Court’s decision last term in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen restricted the ability of several states — New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, California, Maryland and Massachusetts — to enforce portions of their gun control statutes relating to concealed carry permits. 

In turn, this set off a scramble to enact new restrictions, which New York’s state legislature did almost immediately after the decision was handed down. Earlier this month, however, a state judge blocked key parts of New York’s effort from being enforced. New York’s law is likely to be tied up in a legal limbo for the foreseeable future.

Last week, New Jersey entered the fray, introducing sweeping gun control legislation that would, among other things, make the Garden State the first in the nation to require gun purchasers to carry insurance. The new law would also increase the gun licensing fee to $200 from $2. Gun owners would also be required to pay for several rounds of gun safety training courses.

As much as possible, New Jersey would like to maintain the status quo. The state’s gun laws rank among the strictest in America, along with some of the lowest rates of gun ownership. It also has the third-lowest rate of gun deaths per capita.

Now, various forces are threatening the state’s grip on guns. In addition to the rightward lurch of the Supreme Court, the Covid pandemic sparked the sale of guns nationwide. This trend has continued as violent crime has risen across the country.  In a 2021 Gallup survey of gun buyers, 88 percent of respondents said that they purchased a firearm for protection against crime.

The fees and taxes are the most problematic, though not the only, features of New Jersey’s new law. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment, subject to certain restrictions, ensures the right of a person to keep and bear arms. Constitutional rights cannot be accessible only to those with financial means.

Indeed, adding financial costs will not affect the well-to-do, but it will limit the ability of those in low-income communities to legally obtain firearms. It would be a perverse outcome if a wealthy household in an affluent North Jersey neighborhood could keep a veritable arsenal of firearms for sport, while a single mother at Camden might be, for lack of resources, precluded from keeping a firearm for self-defense.

The mandatory insurance provision is especially problematic since, at present, there is little infrastructure in place for insurers to provide for firearm insurance. Besides, no reasonable insurer could be expected to cover criminal acts involving a gun, which account for the vast majority of gun deaths. 

Instead, insurers will be relegated to covering relatively rare instances of gun-related negligence. This is unlikely to move the public-safety-needle in any meaningful sense. The legislature may yet carve out financial exemptions for the indigent. Regardless, the costs will hit hardest somewhere along the income scale — and it won’t be at the top. 

Those who are not able to obtain guns legally, either because of prior criminal convictions, or for lack of resources, will carry on unbothered, while those going through the legal channels will be left footing the bill.

None of this is to say that guns should be handed out for free — only that the government should not be intervening with onerous taxes. It is worth remembering that insurance is required for all sorts of things, including practicing medicine or driving a car. Neither, however, involves a constitutional right. 

Just as the Constitution wouldn’t allow for compulsory free speech insurance under the First Amendment, neither should it tolerate a like requirement for guns under the Second Amendment.