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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT