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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT