What Happens When Republicans Hold Supermajorities - Like With Indiana

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Indiana House passes GOP-backed firearm sale privacy legislation

On Tuesday, the Indiana House of Representatives to pass a GOP-authored bill aimed at keeping records of gun sales and ownership private.

House Bill 1084, authored by Rep. Jake Teshka, R-North Liberty, was prompted by a December 2022 announcement by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) of the creation a new merchant category code (MCC) for sellers of guns and ammunition. MCCs four-digit codes used to sort merchants into categories, and are used for a variety of purposes, including tax reporting and calculating consumers? cash back rewards...

HB 1084 bars governmental entities and individuals in Indiana from maintaining a database of firearms or firearm owners. The legislation would also disallow payment processors from labeling gun sales with a specific MCC and from refusing to process a transaction solely because it bears the MCC. Under the bill, the state attorney general would be empowered to seek civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.

HB 1084, which Teshka said is "aimed at protecting the privacy of Hoosiers who choose to exercise their second amendment rights," has the backing of gun rights groups, including the National Rifle Association?s lobbying arm.

House Democrats were split on the bill during Tuesday's vote, with 22 of the party's 30 House members voting against the legislation...

Indiana Lawmakers Trying to Kill Historic Suit Seeking Gun Industry Accountability

For nearly a quarter century, some of the world's largest gunmakers have tried unsuccessfully to beat back a lawsuit brought by the city of Gary, Indiana, accusing them of turning a blind eye to illegal gun sales.

The lawsuit was one of dozens that cities filed against gun manufacturers in the late 1990s, but it is the only one to survive a barrage of legal challenges and legislation aimed at limiting the gun industry's liability for crimes committed with their products.

Now, facing the prospect of turning over internal documents that gun-control advocates believe could contain damning evidence, the industry has returned to an important ally in a last-ditch effort to kill the suit: the state legislature.

Republicans, who hold supermajorities in both chambers of the Statehouse, are close to passing a bill banning cities from suing firearm manufacturers, dealers or trade groups. Instead, only the state could bring such a lawsuit. Significantly, it?s retroactive to Aug. 27, 1999 - three days before Gary filed its lawsuit...

Not 'everywhere' in the country is like California and not 'everyone' in the country supports (ahem) 'gun safety' legislation.

The real question is whether the U.S. can actually function as a 'divided' nation, where some states do one thing and other states do the polar opposite, depending on which 'political party' holds power in that state. The last time we had such increasingly stark divisions among the states on a number of issues, we had the 'Difficulty Between the States' (a.k.a., the Civil War). It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS finally accepts the 'responsibility' their predecessors adopted following that difficulty in terms of setting 'national standards' and if such standards will truly be in our favor.

[AlmostHeaven]

Bravo to the Indiana General Assembly for proactively defending the right to keep and bear arms. Legislative bodies move an order of magnitude more quickly than judiciary institutions. Republicans adopting an equally activist pro-gun posture as Democrats have become anti-gun presents the best way to preserve the uneasy balance.

However, not every GOP politician automatically deserves support, as South Carolina amply demonstrates this week with the failure to pass constitutional carry despite nominally featuring Republican supermajorities in both chambers.

[BAJ475]

Indiana House passes GOP-backed firearm sale privacy legislation

Indiana Lawmakers Trying to Kill Historic Suit Seeking Gun Industry Accountability

Not 'everywhere' in the country is like California and not 'everyone' in the country supports (ahem) 'gun safety' legislation.

The real question is whether the U.S. can actually function as a 'divided' nation, where some states do one thing and other states do the polar opposite, depending on which 'political party' holds power in that state. The last time we had such increasingly stark divisions among the states on a number of issues, we had the 'Difficulty Between the States' (a.k.a., the Civil War). It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS finally accepts the 'responsibility' their predecessors adopted following that difficulty in terms of setting 'national standards' and if such standards will truly be in our favor.

House Bill 1084 does not go far enough. There should not be any records to "keep secret." For example, Section 11 of Article I of the Idaho Constitution states in part: "No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition." In other words, there is no problem in keeping records secret or preventing them from being released if they do not exist!

Yes, it will be interesting to see if SCOTUS finally accepts the 'responsibility' their predecessors adopted following that difficulty in terms of setting 'national standards' and if such standards will truly be in our favor.

[Jimi Jah]

Battle lines are being drawn now for the next revolution.

[AlmostHeaven]

House Bill 1084 does not go far enough. There should not be any records to "keep secret." For example, Section 11 of Article I of the Idaho Constitution states in part: "No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition." In other words, there is no problem in keeping records secret or preventing them from being released if they do not exist!

Yes, it will be interesting to see if SCOTUS finally accepts the 'responsibility' their predecessors adopted following that difficulty in terms of setting 'national standards' and if such standards will truly be in our favor.

I strongly theorize that the Supreme Court has adopted a timid restrained posture because Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization shook the national consciousness in an election year and significantly hampered Republican electoral performance in November 2022. I hope that should the GOP flip control of the Senate this year, the high court may moderately pivot back towards a more active role.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I strongly theorize that the Supreme Court has adopted a timid restrained posture because Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization shook the national consciousness in an election year and significantly hampered Republican electoral performance in November 2022. I hope that should the GOP flip control of the Senate this year, the high court may moderately pivot back towards a more active role.

Actually, what Dobbs represented was what I alluded to when I said... It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS finally accepts the 'responsibility' their predecessors adopted following that difficulty in terms of setting 'national standards' and if such standards will truly be in our favor.

In Dobbs, the Conservative majority declared what we already knew, that 'abortion' is not a specifically enumerated right and that the 'logic' used to portray it as such was faulty, at best. As a result, they removed it as something designated by the Judiciary as 'unalienable' as a right...

...Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives...

The problem with returning it to the states is what we're witnessing. Chaos and confusion. Likewise, having it mandated or "imposed" by the Judiciary also leads to confusion and consternation due to competing interests. In other words, both introduce a sense of 'ambiguity' and, as the majority opinion stated: "This Court cannot bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy simply by dictating a settlement and telling the people to move on." So... What to do? Ah... Return it to the People and their elected representatives to determine.

In other words, Dobbs does not preclude abortion, much to the chagrin of many. Neither does it set a national standard allowing for abortion in that such is outside the purview of the Judiciary; think of that as an 'hand slap' to those who tried. It simply said: "Don't ask us, you decide."

Now, compare that to the 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. They are enumerated rights. As such, they are supposed to represent a 'national standard.' Or, as my continually referenced phrase from Barnette states it...

...The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections...

What has been happening is that abortion has been treated as the enumerated right and 'arms' has been dealt with as something other than an explicitly enumerated right and thus falling under the Tenth Amendment as a 'fungible' to be determined by the States. ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.") In other words, it's been the reverse of what the Founders intended.

In that sense, you're not entirely wrong. However, it's not about 'activism.' It's about returning the Judiciary to its proper role in determining what is protected and what needs to be determined as protected by the People and their representatives. In the case of the former, that falls within the jurisdiction of the Court. In the case of the latter, it does not... yet... fall within the jurisdiction of the Court.