Ever since the Supreme Court ordered the District to allow gun ownership, we’ve heard any number of proposed regulations on how to get them, where to store them, when to use them and how to carry them. Today in the Post one reader proposes something a little different — gun liability insurance:

The D.C. Council should require all gun owners in the District to obtain gun liability insurance. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of an individual right to own firearms, but it did not say that jurisdictions cannot regulate guns in a way similar to how cars are regulated. A study by P.J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, professors at Duke University and the University of Chicago, shows the direct and indirect costs of handgun violence exceed $100 billion a year.

In fact, the National Rifle Association sells gun liability insurance. Responsible gun owners could procure insurance from reputable companies; those whom society would least want to own guns would have difficulty obtaining it at reasonable cost, if at all. As it stands, health insurers and taxpayers are penalized for the actions of criminals and irresponsible gun owners, who should be bearing the costs. Let the market resolve this issue and penalize those it determines are not responsible enough to own guns.

In August, a professor at Rutgers University made the same case, arguing that “while the activity may be lawful and to some extent necessary, those who engage in the activity should pay for the carnage the activity almost inevitably produces.”

Good idea or just another scheme to make gun ownership that much harder? We’d like to hear your thoughts.