As the Trump era begins, don’t forget state-level fights for liberty

FILE - In this Dec. 11, 2013 file photo, a row of beer taps stand ready to serve at Hop City Craft Beer and Wine in Birmingham, Ala. A new law will loosen Alabama’s alcohol laws to let craft breweries sell to-go beer directly to consumers. Alabama’s 25 or so brewers have been selling beer in retail stores for several years. But they could only sell draft beer by the glass to customers who visited a brewery. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)

President Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office will dominate the news cycle for, well, the next 96 days or so, and if his presidency is anything like his campaign, it will gobble up media attention well beyond that time.

Videos by Rare

But amid all the anticipation, trepidation, and — let’s be honest — sheer speculation about Trump’s first term, now more than ever it is important to pay attention to state- and local-level fights for liberty.

RELATED: Rand Paul: Why I voted against the new CIA director

Sure, a lot of policy decided at these lower levels of government is not sexy stuff. It doesn’t have the thrilling quality of mass surveillance or matters of war and peace. Yet in terms of what is most likely to daily affect our quality of life and that of our family, friends, and neighbors, the influence of state and local governance is huge.

That’s especially the case where issues like criminal justice reform and regulations affecting small businesses or entrepreneurs are concerned, as two recent news items out of Indiana and Florida highlight well.

1. Indiana bill would allow police to shut down protests ‘by any means necessary’

As The Guardian reports, Indiana’s state senate this month considered legislation that would give police broad new authority to shut down protests:

A bill that would require public officials in Indiana to dispatch law enforcement swiftly to remove any protesters blocking traffic by “any means necessary” prompted uproar on Wednesday.

Opponents of the bill, introduced by a Republican state senator, rushed to the general assembly in Indianapolis on Wednesday afternoon to attend a hearing for the legislation, arguing that it could give a green light to the police to shut down protests harshly “even to the point of costing lives”.

The proposed law, simply labelled Senate Bill 285, or SB 285, and designed to deal with “traffic obstruction by protestors” would go into effect in July if passed.

It calls for officials, such as a city mayor or county sheriff, to be required to quickly clear any mass traffic obstruction – defined as 10 or more protesters – blocking roads.

Now, whatever our view of a given protest or protest tactic, a rule like this is troubling on a number of levels.

First, “any means necessary” policing is disproportionate and dangerous. A protest blocking traffic may or may not require police action; it absolutely doesn’t require an extrajudicial death sentence.

Second, it isn’t difficult to imagine such a rule being abused. What counts as “blocking traffic” could easily be interpreted loosely enough to apply to almost any outdoor protest, meaning government officials would have in practice a free license to squash dissent at will.

And third, the bill mandates a decision that should be at the discretion of local officials who have personal knowledge of the circumstances and political climate of the protest in question.

“A responsible public official shall, not later than 15 minutes after learning of a mass traffic obstruction in the official’s jurisdiction, dispatch all available law enforcement officers … with directions to use any means necessary to clear the roads of the persons unlawfully obstructing vehicular traffic,” the bill’s text said. But actually, a responsible public official should be able to assess each protest on a case-by-case basis and make a wise decision geared toward protecting free speech rights and keeping the peace without police escalation.

2. Florida Could Repeal Nonsensical Rule Limiting Sales By Small Distilleries

As Reason reports, Florida currently has a super dumb rule about liquor sales by small distilleries:

Craft distillers, liquor makers that produce less than 75,000 gallon of booze per year, in Florida currently are prohibited from selling more than four bottles of liquor to a single customer within the same calendar year—and no more than two bottles to the same customer at once. To comply with arbitrary and restrictive state law, distillers have to record their customers’ names and driver’s license numbers in a registry that can be reviewed by state officials.

But it might be going away:

The bill to repeal the sales limit would also remove several other roadblocks that keep Florida’s small distillers from being able to grow their market share. The bill would allow distillers to sell their product off-site without going through a distributor (that’s currently illegal, all sales must take place at same location where the liquor is made), and would raise the threshold when higher state tax rates apply to distillers to 250,000 gallons annually from the current level of 75,000 gallons.

RELATED: The Miranda warning needs to be updated for the digital age—here’s how

Back in 2015, Florida got rid of a similarly nonsensical rule affecting breweries. Before the rule change, brewers could sell beer in 32-ounce growlers or 128-ounce growlers — but not 64-ounce growlers.

That beer law was exactly as silly as it sounds, and now that it’s gone, Florida has somehow managed not to descend into drunken chaos. It seems safe to say the repeal of the liquor limit will have a likewise tame effect.

What do you think?

The camera was still rolling when this British weatherman gave his anchor a piece of his mind

Paris Jackson stuns fans with the shocking confession about her “multiple” suicide attempts