by Abdul-Hakim Shabazz
Okay, let’s all be honest. Joe Hogsett’s and Jefferson Shreve’s gun control proposals have about as much chance of making it through the Indiana General Assembly as I have of being the head of the local White Supremacists organization.
A quick recap: Hogsett and Shreve are candidates for Indianapolis Mayor. Crime is a significant issue in the campaign this year, and both have out our public safety proposals, which include gun control.
Hogsett would end permitless/constitutional carry in Marion County, as well as ban assault-style weapons, and raise the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21. His proposals would go into effect if the legislature changed the law. Shreve’s plan would do all three, except he says he would go to the General Assembly and ask for exemptions.
I criticized Hogsett’s plan, and since this portion of Shreve’s is the same, I offer up that same criticism. I have serious doubts that either would work. I was also somewhat surprised at Shreve’s gun control proposals. As I was always taught, politics is about addition, not subtraction. In other words, every proposal should attract more voters to you than turn them away. After a few days of observation, I think I can say that Shreve’s proposal is a net loss because I don’t think it will sway any moderate or independent voters, as it’s the same as Hogsett’s. And secondly, it just ticks off Second Amendment supporters who now have second thoughts.
I understand Marion County is a predominantly urban environment, and running as a Republican in the city is different than running in suburbia or a rural area, but when it comes to crime, why adopt one of the most controversial portions of your opponent’s public safety plan?
If I were the candidate (we all know that story), I would have focused on people who shouldn’t possess weapons, not law-abiding citizens. Both the Hogsett and Shreve gun control proposals only impact law-abiding citizens. An 18-year-old who wants an assault weapon to do bad things probably doesn’t care about having to be 21 to buy a gun because he’s not getting his weapon from a gun shop but an alley.
When it comes to illegally possessed weapons, the focus should be just that, illegally possessed weapons and not legal, law-abiding gun owners. There should be increased penalties for using a weapon to commit a crime, and if we ended the revolving door at the jail, we’d see a drop in crime, as most criminals in Marion County who commit homicides usually have a prior felony. And when it comes to accidental shootings, I would argue the city funds a grant program where people can apply for funds to take gun safety classes.
The Indiana State Capitol, rightly or wrongly, is a gun-control-free zone. And I don’t see how lawmakers would pass what either candidate wants to do with guns. As I was in the building earlier this week, I had a few conversations with folks there, and after they stopped laughing, they said there was no way either plan would get a Republican sponsor, much less a vote.
And even if the gun control measures were to pass, what does this mean for someone who was 18 and bought their weapon outside of Marion County but works in Indianapolis? Would they have to leave their gun at home? Or what if you drive through Indy and carry? Does that mean you have to take a different route to work? Ah, questions, questions.
I think we can all say both gun control proposals fall short, and there’s a zero chance in hell that either would pass. So how about we do this? Both candidates drop their gun control proposals and go back to the drawing board.
Let’s forget about gun control, for now, and focus more on criminal control.
Abdul-Hakim Shabazz is the editor and publisher of Indy Politics. He is also a licensed attorney in Indiana and Illinois.
