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. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT