Heller v DC made it clear (for now) that the right to own and bear operable firearms i not an unfettered right. There can be reasonable regulation. But a regulation such as requiring that a gun kept in the home must be kept in an inoperable state was a step too far.
If all firearm ownership requires insurance, would an insurance requirement imposed on someone who truly can not afford insurance and therefore is prevented from legally owning and bearing an operable firearm of any kind be a step too far according to Heller? Possibly, I would think. But requiring insurance on some firearms (semiautomatic, for example) but not on others might be permissible under Heller.
[A dissenting opinion, it may have been Breyer's, in Heller took issue with Scalia's jettisoning of the Second Amendment's introductory clause, which if kept would seem to render the Amendment obsolete. It is apparently not easy to dispense with words so plain and of such clear and unambiguous meaning, because ridding the Amendment of this pesky clause occupied the greater portion of a very lengthy majority opinion. This was such a daunting task that it caused Scalia to trample on his self-imposed label as an "Originalist", and invoke historic English law. Proving that there is no personal conviction nor adherence to principle so lofty it can not be delicately, or otherwise, violated whenever the occasion requires it.]
