ILNews

Anti-meth bill and right to hunt amendment clear Senate, head to House

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two high-profile bills cleared the Indiana Senate Monday and are headed to the House of Representatives.

Senate Bill 496, which would put tighter restrictions on ephedrine and pseudoephedrine – key ingredients used to manufacture methamphetamine, passed the Senate by a 44-4 vote. The bill is now headed to the House where it will be sponsored by Rep. Jud McMillan, R- Brookville.

SB 496, introduced by Sen. Carlin Yoder, R-Middlebury, limits the amount of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine an individual can buy without a prescription to 61.2 grams a year. It also increases the criminal penalty for a person who buys more than 10 grams of certain meth ingredients, including ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, with the intent of giving them to another individual for making meth.

Also Monday, the Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 7, the proposal to amend Indiana’s Constitution to include the right to hunt, fish, harvest game and farm. Authored by Sens. Yoder and Brent Steele, R-Bedford, the resolution was approved by a 38-10 vote and is moving to the House.

If the amendment passes the General Assembly this session, it will go before voters statewide in the 2014 general election.

In the House Monday, House Bill 1308 and House Bill 1376 passed third reading and were referred to the Senate.

HB 1308 would require the court clerk to collect a $50 fee from parties filing foreclosures. The money would be deposited into the mortgage foreclosure counseling and education account.

HB 1376 would prohibit an individual from knowingly transmitting misleading or inaccurate caller identification information. It makes a violation of this prohibition a Class B misdemeanor and a deceptive act actionable by the Indiana attorney general. A subsequent violation would be a Class A misdemeanor.   

The following bills have passed second reading in the Senate:
•    Senate Bill 36 allows the Indiana attorney general to employ deputies and assistants to review and monitor federal legislation and other activities that may affect the legal interests of Indiana. Language specifically noting these deputies or assistants would reside in Washington, D.C., has been removed.

•    Senate Bill 103 adds language to I.C. 33-27-2-1 that provides the governor shall appoint nonattorney members of the judicial nominating commission from a list of candidates submitted by the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives as well as the minority leaders in the Senate and House.

•    Senate Bill 124 removes the provision requiring justices of the Indiana Supreme Court and judges of the Indiana Court of Appeals to retire at 75 years of age.  

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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 Indiana Lawyer 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.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. File under the Sociology of Hoosier Discipline ... “We will be answering the complaint in due course and defending against the commission’s allegations,” said Indianapolis attorney Don Lundberg, who’s representing Hudson in her disciplinary case. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW ... Lundberg ran the statist attorney disciplinary machinery in Indy for decades, and is now the "go to guy" for those who can afford him .... the ultimate insider for the well-to-do and/or connected who find themselves in the crosshairs. It would appear that this former prosecutor knows how the game is played in Circle City ... and is sacrificing accordingly. See more on that here ... http://www.theindianalawyer.com/supreme-court-reprimands-attorney-for-falsifying-hours-worked/PARAMS/article/43757 Legal sociologists could have a field day here ... I wonder why such things are never studied? Is a sacrifice to the well connected former regulators a de facto bribe? Such questions, if probed, could bring about a more just world, a more equal playing field, less Stalinist governance. All of the things that our preambles tell us to value could be advanced if only sunshine reached into such dark worlds. As a great jurist once wrote: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Other People's Money—and How Bankers Use It (1914). Ah, but I am certifiable, according to the Indiana authorities, according to the ISC it can be read, for believing such trite things and for advancing such unwanted thoughts. As a great albeit fictional and broken resistance leaders once wrote: "I am the dead." Winston Smith Let us all be dead to the idea of maintaining a patently unjust legal order.

  2. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  3. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  4. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

ADVERTISEMENT