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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT