Conversely, “to keep and bear arms” is a constitutional right. A law allowing insurance companies to ration gun ownership via insurance premiums would drastically chill the climate for the exercise of that right. It is a matter of settled law that measures chilling the climate for the exercise of a constitutional right are unconstitutional. Therefore, federal or state laws requiring gun-liability insurance clearly would not withstand judicial challenge.

So the simple answer to the question posed by the authors is: because we can’t regulate the exercise of a constitutional right the same way that we regulate the exercise of a privilege, which is what driving a car is in our society.

“The case for mandatory gun-liability insurance” argued for gun insurance based on the familiar model for car insurance: “You have to buy insurance to drive a car. Why not if you own a gun?”

Similar logic can be made for gun licensing: You have to have a license to drive a car. Why not if you own a gun? Germany requires its citizens to obtain a firearms license to buy a gun, and it has a fraction of the mass shootings and gun violence that plague the United States. Germany has the fourth-highest gun ownership rate in the world, but its gun death rate is one-fourteenth that of the United States. In 2018, there were 815 gun deaths in Germany, compared with nearly 40,000 gun deaths in the United States.

Germany’s licensing process includes background checks for criminal records, addiction and mental health issues. People younger than 25 applying for their first gun license must go through a psychiatric evaluation. In recent decades, Germany has established a federal gun registry, mandatory safe storage and a required security check for gun owners every five years.

A first step toward gun safety and reduced gun violence in the United States would be to require all Americans to get a license to buy a gun.

Christina Files, Chevy Chase

The writer is co-chair of the DC Area Interfaith Gun Violence Prevention Network.