The purpose of preemption laws, such as those you’ll find in Indiana, is to stop local government from creating laws that infringe on the Second Amendment.

This bothers a lot of people, mostly in large urban areas where they’ve become convinced that gun control actually works.

As a result, anti-gun zealots routinely try to attack preemption laws, trying to undermine them or get them overturned in the courts.

So far, they’ve been unsuccessful. That isn’t enough to stop one Indiana lawmaker from trying.

Indiana State Sen. Fady Qaddoura said a new bill he plans to file in the next few weeks seeks to counteract the state’s pre-emption law — a law that’s been on the books since 2011 and prohibits Indiana cities, counties, and towns from creating their own gun control regulations.

”My argument to the General Assembly is that, ‘Quit complaining about gun violence at the same time when you are tying the hands of the locals to come up with solutions,’” Sen. Qaddoura said.

If the senator’s bill is passed, Indiana municipalities could create their own gun control regulations such as requiring the safe storage of firearms, requiring a license to carry a handgun, and expanding background checks for firearm purchases.

There is, however, a caveat. Any potential regulations under consideration by a municipality must be backed by a local law enforcement agency and comply with both the U.S. and Indiana State Constitutions.

Now, that last bit is a novel twist, but it’s also ridiculous.

Folks like me and like a lot of people in Indiana would argue that no gun control actually complies with the US Constitution. The Second Amendment has that whole “shall not be infringed” thing, after all.

There’s not much chance of the bill passing, much less surviving constitutional challenge, but there’s one particular part I want to talk about a bit more.

”My argument to the General Assembly is that, ‘Quit complaining about gun violence at the same time when you are tying the hands of the locals to come up with solutions,’” Sen. Qaddoura said.

I’m going to point out to Qaddoura that much of the violent crime problem is actually the result of locals. We know, for example, that extremely progressive DAs who refuse to prosecute or judges who turn cell doors into revolving doors.

Further, Qaddoura doesn’t actually favor locals figuring out what works best for them. This is a common refrain from anti-gunners yet I have yet to see them actually stand aside should a local government want to ignore some bit of gun control.

Now, they might well have decided that the gun control law in question is making their community unsafe, but they’re never free–at least, not in the mind of gun control advocates–to create a law that undoes that measure.

Preemption does limit what local governments can do, but gun control does as well. The difference is that preemption, at least in theory, provides a path for local gun control. It might be unlikely to be passed, but that possibility at least exists.

With gun control, that door is closed forever.

So pardon me if I don’t buy that whole, “You won’t let local governments find solutions” thing. They don’t want to let local governments find solutions. They want local governments to create more restrictions. Those two things aren’t remotely the same.