A bill passed by the state House in early June and under consideration by the state Senate would require municipalities and counties that attempt to pass local ordinances and regulations regarding gun ownership to pay for plaintiffs’ court costs if the local ordinances are struck down as unconstitutional.

It is a good proposal.

If municipalities overstep their authority and infringe on the Bill of Rights, the proposal in effect assesses a financial penalty.

Furthermore, the proposal alleviates the financial burden for constituents who challenge unconstitutional measures — the pursuit of constitutionally enshrined liberty should be cause for celebration, not giant legal debts.

And the municipal and county governments only incur these debts if the courts strike down the ordinance — a check and balance on excessive local authority.

Both the federal and state constitutions are clear in protecting the right to bear arms.

Allowing municipalities and counties leeway to craft their own gun-control policies leaves gun owners uncertain of where their liberties expand or shrink.

We doubt many readers would accept such uncertainty in the free exercise of religion, or application of due process or any other guaranteed constitutional right.

Defining the parameters of the right to keep and bear arms is best left to state and federal government — and best to be defined as deferentially as possible to the rights of Americans.