Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
OK, 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 becoming the head of a 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 put out 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 proposals. As I was always taught, politics is about addition, not subtraction. In other words, every proposal should attract more voters to you than it turns away. After a few days of observation, I think I can say Shreve’s proposal is a net loss. I don’t think it will sway any moderate or independent voters, as it’s the same as Hogsett’s. And it just ticks off Second Amendment supporters, who now are having second thoughts.
I understand Marion County is a predominantly urban environment, and running as a Republican in the city is different than running in suburban and rural areas, 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 impact only 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.
When it comes to illegally possessed weapons, the focus should be on just that—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.
The Indiana Legislature is a gun-control-free zone. I don’t see lawmakers passing what either candidate wants to do with guns. As I was in the building earlier this month, 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 is 18 and works in Indianapolis but bought a weapon outside of Marion County? 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 zero chance 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.•
__________
Shabazz is an attorney, radio talk show host and political commentator, college professor and stand-up comedian. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
This is why you need to write in Abdul for Mayor
+1
You’ve bought into the idea that guns are just a fact of life and there is nothing that can be done about the number of guns flooding the streets. You also seem to disagree with the fact that sheer availability of guns leads to more gun violence.
People seem to be OK with universal licensing of dangerous tools. They are OK with individual training and licensing of users. They are OK with regulations to make these dangerous items safer… Oh, and by the way, I’m talking about cars, with license plates, and driver’s tests, drivers licenses, and airbags, seatbelts, headlights, etc…, so why wouldn’t we treat guns with the same public safety policies in mind.
As far as I can tell Abdul is still part of the problem and willing to throw up his hands and say there’s no solution.