Now it’s time for the Indianapolis City-County Council to line up for a group photo as an example of this posturing.
On Monday night, the body voted to ban constitutional carry within the city as part of Mayor Joe Hogsett’s (D) election year gun control agenda. Officials went further and prohibited so-called “assault weapons” within the city’s borders.
As a bonus, Proposition 156 also hiked the minimum age to purchase a firearm in Indianapolis to 21. The mayor claimed it had the support of most Indianapolis residents.
Before the vote was taken, Hogsett expressed his desire for bipartisan backing. “I hope it passes with a resounding message to the community that we’re serious about gun violence and we’re serious about getting guns out of the hands of people who have no legal right to possess them.”
Fair enough, but how does a ban on constitutional carry accomplish this? Or raising the minimum age to purchase or possess a firearm?
To set the scene, Hogsett is running for reelection at a time when the city is under a violent siege with several high profile acts to rattle residents. And there’s a catch to this sweeping package.
It is meaningless. None of the new laws will take effect, thus they are merely window dressing. That’s due to Indiana’s state preemption law that supersedes local governments from going out on their own and passing gun control measures more stringent than those imposed by the state.
For the new ordinance to be enforced, state law would have to be changed either through legislation or court action. Experts warn, however, that these preemption laws have been repeatedly upheld by both federal and state courts.
Hogsett, who proposed the anti-gun package in May, celebrated after the vote. “Tonight, we are sending a clear message of where we stand about the causes of gun violence and the proliferation of illegal weapons on our streets,” he announced in a statement.
Opponents slammed the acts as unconstitutional, but that did not sway the council majority.
Council Minority Leader Brian Mowery explained that he voted against the package “because I disagree with the toothless language and the policy itself, but also because it likely violates state statute and the state constitution.”
Proponents, of course, called it a commonsense measure.
Hogsett is running for reelection against challenger Jefferson Shreve, who blasted the mayor for the current surge in violent crime. Shreve accused the incumbent of ignoring the issue until the election approached, saying “it’s remarkable how much Joe Hogsett has to say now that it’s an election year.”
The current mayor axed the city’s public safety director position when he came aboard in 2016, and now his opponent pledges to recreate that title. If the prospective new person is tough on crime and enforces laws already on the books, it could be an upgrade.
If not, it’s just more window dressing.
The good news is that these measures are simply political posturing. They are jump scares in a horror film — done for effect only. It is anybody’s guess if city voters will be swayed by empty gestures, but that’s what the incumbent mayor is counting on.
Instead of targeting law-abiding gun owners, which is exactly what this package does, leaders would be far better off acting aggressively to deter the criminal element behind the spike in violent crime. Stripping the people’s ability to defend themselves is foolish and short-sighted.
And, thanks to Indiana state law, it is only a pipe dream for Indianapolis’ anti-gun zealots.
