On a visit to the Indiana Statehouse, visitors might marvel at the limestone columns, stained glass windows and murals. Perhaps they’ll see the governor on his way to a press conference or meeting. They may even spot a government employee — clad in business attire — with a handgun tucked into their waistband. Does that last image seem impossible? Think again. Judges, police officers, members of the legislature and their staff have been permitted to carry firearms in the State House since 2017. Now, a new bill seeks to expand that right.
Senate Bill 14 would allow the Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Comptroller, State Treasurer and their full-time staff to carry firearms in the Statehouse. The bill intends to extend the same rights to these state officials as members of the General Assembly. The bill already passed out of the Senate and into the House.
In my opinion, Senate Bill 14 is a showpiece bill pushed forward by lawmakers hoping to prove a point. There is no reason a lawmaker or employee needs a gun in the statehouse. Is a firearm really needed to discuss policy matters and attend to the business of the state of Indiana? There should be adequate security at the entrance and throughout the complex to prevent any need for self-defense inside. In fact, entrances are staffed by Indiana State Police Capitol Police officers, and visitors pass through metal detectors and screening devices. If there are concerns about safety inside the building, official internal security should be reinforced.
To be fair, one of the authors, Senator James Tomes, R-Wadesville cited safety outside of the Statehouse and high crime rates in Indianapolis as justification for the bill. In January of 2024, for example, a man was shot and killed at a transit center just a few blocks away from the statehouse.
“It stands to reason why people would like to be able to protect themselves, walking from the parking garage or even the parking lot,” he told the Indianapolis Capital Chronicle. “We just want to make sure that these people have the ability to protect themselves to and from.”
At first glance, his statement seems reasonable, but some digging revealed Tomes ignored the facts about gun ownership. While it may seem like “good guys with guns can stop the bad guys with guns,” this isn’t really true. Guns are rarely used for self-defense; and even when they are, other defensive strategies such as calling for help are just as effective. And not to state the obvious, but guns are also associated with increases in violence. In a 1998 study, accidental shootings, homicides, assaults and suicides were far more common than defensive gun use. So statistically, gun use does not increase personal safety. Tomes’ entire justification for the bill falls flat.
Further, allowing more employees in the Statehouse to carry firearms could create security concerns. The Statehouse is often a venue for protests: Allowing guns during such charged events will only increase tension. We have only to look to January 6, 2021 to see just how heated protests at government centers can become. It seems illogical and even irresponsible for government officials to be advocating for more guns where political disagreements and protests are on full display.
The proposal also does not require any training to bring a firearm into the statehouse, though it would require a permit. (A permit is not required to carry a firearm in the state of Indiana and does not include firearms training.) The inclusion of staff members of the four elected state officials mentioned in the bill means that a large number of people may be permitted to carry a firearm with little oversight and training. Several state lawmakers expressed concerns about this aspect of the bill.
“I have reservations about the sheer number of people we’re extending this to,” Republican Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange, told the Capital Chronicle.
No firearms training and potentially hundreds of people openly carrying firearms in a government center does not seem like a prudent idea.
If Senate Bill 14 passes, many other state employees and members of the public visiting the Statehouse will still be barred from carrying. However, Tomes told the Capital Chronicle some policymakers are interested in expanding the right to carry “even more.” Does he mean to more Statehouse employees? To anyone who wishes to enter the Statehouse? This strikes me as completely ridiculous; guns are not permitted on federal property, in airports, or near schools. Given the current political climate, why should anyone —much less unvetted people off the street — be allowed to carry at the seat of our state government?
This bill does nothing to increase the safety of our government officials or the statehouse. Rather, the bill and those who want to carry at the statehouse wish to do so to prove a point. Their gun is a prop to demonstrate their unrelenting dedication to the Second Amendment and conservative values, rather than a tool they feel is necessary for their safety.
Look no further than the recent incident of Representative Jim Lucas showing his gun to a group of high school students advocating for greater gun control. He didn’t need his gun at that moment for personal safety. He needed it to show his dominance and the power he holds to a group of teenagers.
Though this may seem like a small issue in the larger gun control debate, this bill indicates the conservative majority’s desire to move even further towards deregulation of guns. Rather than expanding the right to carry in a government area, we should be restricting it. It is a shame, though not a surprise, that lawmakers look past the facts of gun use to serve a political agenda.
Samantha Camire (she/her) is a freshman studying journalism with a minor in Spanish.
