IBJNews

  • Home

Daniels signs measure changing Indiana alcohol ID law

Associated Press
May 13, 2011
Keywords
Elected Officials, Government, Government & Economic Development, Governor, Legislation, Legislature, Mitch Daniels, State Government
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has signed several new more bills into law, including one that will no longer require everyone buying carryout alcohol to show identification regardless of age.

Daniels signed the law Friday that states only those appearing younger than age 40 must be carded, starting July 1. Current law mandates carding of all individuals.

Daniels also signed a bill requiring Indiana retailers to use a computerized tracking system to identify those buying cold medications used in making methamphetamine. Stores selling ephedrine or pseudoephedrine products will enter the identity of customers into a multistate database that limits how much a person can buy.

Daniels vetoed a bill dealing with forfeitures, saying it went against the state constitution to take much of the proceeds collected through forfeitures and use it for purposes other than a school fund.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Sick of big brother
    Jennifer TeareDecember 29, 2011 7:44 PM
    It's all about how you can't be trusted, your neighbor can't be trusted, you're too stupid to do anything right... So quit using your brain, do as you're told; you live in a prison, so GET YOUR ID OUT! And while you're at it, let's see your "loyal shopper" card.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • As for the Id matter 40 years Old Come on!
    Bruce AndersonMay 13, 2011 5:46 PM
    As for the ID thing....I think it should be sided with say Selective service if anything at All...old enought to Kill for your nation your old enough to Buy..this is to me is like Gun Control if the seller see's a problem they can refuse you...Besides again i think this case about buying Goods as I understand can only be done by a Act of Congress... Gibbons V. Ogden} 9 Wheaton 1 (1824). Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall, Upholds Only Congress can regulate Inter States Commerce.
    Commerce in this case is more for the fact of Money and the federal Standard of , this view is a part of the views of what became the civil war and the fall out of !




    Filed January 01- Day 04 2011, a $33 million Dollar Tort Claim to Suit City of Bloomington Monroe County Indiana Elected & Appointed part of Tort Claim / Lawsuit is to Challenge Constitutionality of the City of Bloomington May 17,2010 letter to Arizona for Incitement of Boycott of Arizona self defense. Lawsuit filed May 2, 2011 Summons service date May 4th 2011, Cause # 53c061105ct000811
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • I say No
    Bruce AndersonMay 13, 2011 5:26 PM
    Daniels also signed a bill requiring Indiana retailers to use a computerized tracking system to identify those buying cold medications used in making methamphetamine. Stores selling ephedrine or pseudoephedrine products will enter the identity of customers into a multistate database that limits how much a person can buy....



    I Understand the need to been Watchfull of things...But this Move is not Constitutional, Not Ever one Buying this Stuff is in the Event seeking to carry out a crime, there for tracking such is using a law to say your guilty for a crime with out being proved to be do ing so, So this would Fall under the Guied lines of a Violation of the 5th Amendment! http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/5th-amendment.html

    I also thing think this could be so challenged thru a tort Claim suing using Direct or Indirect Constitutional Contempt them suing a suit and laws as such as US title 42 usc section 1983, I say under the Indiana State Constitution section 12 Section 12. Openess of the courts, Speedy trial
    Section 12. All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay. Could file such a case free then so fight the matter of such mised views of laws.

    Gibbons V. Ogden} 9 Wheaton 1 (1824). Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall, Upholds Only Congress can regulate Inter States Commerce.
    Commerce in this case is more for the fact of Money and the federal Standard of , this view is a part of the views of what became the civil war and the fall out of!


    Anderson of bloomington Indiana
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Priorities
      St. Pauli GirlMay 13, 2011 1:06 PM
      I guess the ability to sell to minors is more lucrative to the alchoholic beverage lobby than the right to sell on Sundays. Or, at least, it's something that big boxes and mom and pops can agree on!
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment
    • Stupid
      Can you believe thisMay 13, 2011 11:55 AM
      Oh, another stupid law defining the age to buy alcohol. We have one defining the age at 21. That should be enough. Showing an ID to prove you are over 40 is further proof that our state legislature is incompetent. So now the clerk is to determine if you look to be over 40 and he won't have to ask for your ID. Personally, I would like to have a job but any help from the state legislature or the governor to help increase employment opportunities is beyond their abilities. They are only capable of passing laws that deal with their social agenda. (At least this new law is meaningless as a clerk can alway say he thought the person looks to be over 40 and it eliminates people like me who are well over 40 from ever having to show my ID again.)
      Reply to CommentFlag Comment

      Post a comment to this story

      COMMENTS POLICY
      We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
       
      You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
       
      Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
       
      No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
       
      We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
       

      Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

      ADVANCED SEARCH
      Sponsored by
      ADVERTISEMENT

      facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
      Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
       
      Subscribe to IBJ

      1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

      2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

      3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

      4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

      5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

      ADVERTISEMENT