The Indianapolis City Council embarked on a complete waste of time when it pursued a package of unconstitutional gun control laws it cannot possibly enforce.

But last week, members advanced a series of measures despite being governed by a state preemption law that prohibits local governments from passing and enforcing laws concerning the Second Amendment. That statute has been in effect since 2011, and council members confessed that their proposal is toothless as long as preemption remains the law of the state.

Still, the package passed out of the Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee, and the City Council is set to vote on it anyway on July 10.

Proposal 156 originated from Mayor Joe Hogsett (D) and contains a series of new laws that blatantly run afoul of both state and federal law. The legal age to purchase a firearm in Marion County would jump from 18 to 21, so-called “assault weapons” would be banned outright, permitless carry would be abolished, and the right to concealed carry would end under the laws.

During Wednesday’s meeting, Hogsett declared that “these policies were selected because they are supported by the vast, vast majority of the people of the city of Indianapolis.”

Someone should and likely has informed the honorable mayor that rights clearly defined in the Constitution are not subject to popular vote. It does not matter in the slightest if the “vast majority” do not favor the freedom of religion or of the press.

And political leaders first and foremost should know this and defend the liberties they are sworn to uphold.

The only effect of the Indianapolis ordinance, if passed next month, is to act as a “trigger law.” If Indiana’s preemption law is changed or repealed, or if it is struck down by the courts, this city statute would take effect.

Indianapolis, like many cities in the U.S., is buckling under near-record violence, and it is understandable that leaders look for something to make a difference. But bringing the hammer down on law-abiding gun owners will do nothing to address the crisis, and doing “something” for something’s sake is an exercise in futility.

Police Chief Randal Taylor noted the law would have no immediate effect, but in his mind, it sends a message to victims of violent crime and their families.

“It’s important to me, it’s important to our officers and it’s important to this community, so that’s why we’re doing it,” he explained.

For an obvious case of political posturing, council member Crista Carlino (D) remarked that “I don’t think it’s posturing. I don’t think it’s empty because it is codified, and you will be able to look it up and point to it in municipal code in Marion County.”

In other words, the fact that it may be read somewhere makes it important, even though lawmakers are wasting their time with laws that stand little or no chance of ever being enforced.

Not all council members agreed. Dissenting members of the Indianapolis committee argued that the package of laws is folly and the wrong approach to solving the city’s crime problem.

Councilor Brian Mowery (R) explained that “these ‘what if’ statements don’t work. Instead of trying to blame firearms, let’s look at the people who are doing the wrongdoing and put them behind bars.”

Wednesday’s meeting over the controversial package saw several outbursts from the audience, and one man was removed by law enforcement.

According to legal professor Jody Madeira, Indiana’s preemption law is unlikely to be struck down by the courts or rescinded by lawmakers. He noted that both state and federal courts have upheld these measures numerous times.

Clearly, the Indianapolis Mayor and City Council’s actions are all for show.