ILNews

Judge firearm, ‘ag-gag’ bills to get hearings Tuesday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation that would increase the penalties for battery on a judicial officer and provide judges the same immunity as law enforcement officers for possession and use of a firearm will be heard by an Indiana Senate Committee on Tuesday.

The Senate Corrections and Criminal Law Committee will take up Senate Bill 3 and a host of other bills at 9:30 a.m. in Room 130 of the Statehouse. Authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Brent Steele, R-Bedford, SB 3 would make battery on a judicial officer a minimum Level 6 felony under the revised criminal code set to take effect July 1. The bill also would give judicial officers the same protections as law enforcement officers pertaining to firearms liability.

The committee also will hear Senate Bill 101, referred to as the “ag-gag” bill.  The bill would allow agricultural operations to post any prohibited activities, violation of which could be charged as a Level 6 felony.

Senate Bill 28, increasing penalties for those who facilitate the supply of alcohol to minors, also will be heard Tuesday.

The committee also will hear these bills that were prepared by the criminal law and sentencing policy study committee:

  • Senate Bill 52 reduces violations of certain Department of Natural Resources statutes under I.C. 14 from misdemeanors to infractions.
  • Senate Bill 63 increases the penalty for nonsupport of a dependent child from a Level 6 felony to a Level 5 felony for repeat offenders.


 


 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT