Sen. Steele has introduced SB 4 which would allow “the manager of a public use airport, or the manager’s designee, to chase or take at any time, without a hunting license, a wild animal that is located on the airport’s property that contains the runway or apron.”

(Title reference is to South Park.)

This permission for unlicensed hunting joins the privilege already in place for owners and lessors of farm land to take the wild animals on the farm land as well as for kids under 13 without a firearm or bow. (Now I’m envisioning unlicensed minor/bear knife fights).

Senator Steele has introduced SB 3 which gives additional powers and protections to judges with respect to the use of force. It would add judicial officers as a class of individuals entitled to additional protection from battery. That protection comes in the form of a more severe penalty where a judge is assaulted instead of an ordinary citizen. In this respect, judges would join law enforcement officers, probation officers, community corrections workers, members of the department of correction and the like.

It also limits the ability of local government to prohibit these judicial officers (technically state officials) from carrying firearms in public buildings. Judicial officers would have the same authority to carry firearms as law enforcement officers (except that, of course, those law enforcement officers are regulated by their superiors — judges would not, presumably, have that chain of command.) Additionally:

A judicial officer who possesses a firearm as described in section 1 of this chapter has the same civil and criminal immunities and defenses concerning possession and use of the firearm that a law enforcement officer has when the law enforcement officer:
(1) possesses and uses a firearm; and
(2) is engaged in the execution of the law enforcement officer’s official duties

Something interesting about the construction of that paragraph, and I don’t know whether it’s intentional. Judicial officers are entitled to the same immunities and defenses as law enforcement officers who possesses and uses a firearm while engaged in the law enforcement officer’s official duties. The judicial officer’s immunities do not appear to be conditioned on the judicial officer being engaged in his or her official duties. Rather, engaged in official duties or not, the judicial officer gets the same immunities as law enforcement that is engaged in his or her official duties.

Senator Steele has introduced SB 2 which would exempt Indiana and U.S. Flags from the state gross retail tax, along with items that are already exempt, like food and medicine (and, to be fair, a number of other privileged classes of goods).

If one’s fervor for displays of patriotism can be quenched by $1.50 in sales tax, however, one has to wonder about the level of commitment to the cause.

A guest column appeared in the Lafayette Journal & Courier setting forth opposition to HJR 6 by 22 local clergy members.

The significance of this, I would say, is that it diminishes the potential of framing the issue as a religious versus non-religious issue or as the forces of morality versus the forces of immorality. In the past, it seems like the political narrative would suggest that “values voters” oppose anything that looked like cultural normalization of gay people. This kind of column muddies the water in that respect.

They say:

Our various religious traditions teach us to engage in the slow and demanding work of transformation. Day by day, we are called to make ourselves and the world around us a little bit better: a more loving, more hopeful and more authentic place, where all of God’s children have a chance to flourish.

As Greater Lafayette area clergy, we believe HJR-6 — the proposed amendment regarding marriage — is a fearful stumble backward instead of a faithful step forward in the work of transformation. We are united in our belief that this amendment would dignify discrimination and threaten religious liberty.

It undermines the rights of same-sex couples and their families, both long-time Hoosiers and newly arrived transplants, by jeopardizing employer-provided family benefits, legal contracts and human rights ordinances. All Hoosiers should be entitled to equal rights and protections under our state law.

That is strong work.

I do, however, take some issue with some legal analysis in the column. They point out the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage and correctly recognize that, when heterosexual couples in Indiana are married by a religious institution, those couples receive the benefits of both religious and civil marriage. Under IC 31-11-11, same sex couples who receive the benefit of religious marriage in their church would not receive the civil benefits of marriage.

However, where the column goes legally astray, in my opinion, is when it suggests that IC 31-11-11-7 might be a restriction on their religious liberties. It provides a criminal penalty for those who “solemnize” a same sex marriage. But, I don’t think this can be fairly read to criminalize the act of sanctioning a marriage religiously. Rather, the context of the law really points to the notion that “solemnization” has to do with certifying the marriage to the State for purposes of the marriage receiving civil recognition. We had some discussion of “solemnization” here back when there were accusations flying that the General Assembly had criminalized the act of even applying for a marriage certificate by same sex couples.

So, while I agree with the column’s stance against HJR 6 as being bad policy; I can’t embrace the contention that its passage is a step down the slippery slope into religious oppression.

The Probate Code Study Commission endorsed the language in PD 3206 (pdf) for recommendation to the General Assembly. It would specify that a “distributee” (defined elsewhere as “those persons who are entitled to the real and personal property of a decedent under a will, under the statutes of intestate succession, or under IC 29-1-4-1”) as opposed to persons generally claiming an interest in the estate are entitled to take certain actions in small estate matters (e.g. open the estate with an affidavit; gather assets from debtors of the decedent; . Small estates are those with a value under $50,000.

The concern appears to be to distinguish heirs and the like from, say, creditors of the decedent who might have a claim against the estate but who (at least in the mind of the probate study commission) would be problematic as administrators of the estate.

The Indiana Law Blog posted on tweets by two reporters indicating that Sen. Long is now saying that he’s troubled by the second sentence in HJR 6 and that if he could rewrite the amendment, he’d leave out that sentence.

As the ILB noted, it bears keeping in mind that, in 2011, Senator Lanane offered an amendment that would have kept the first sentence in HJR 6 but would have done away with that clumsy, overreaching language of the second sentence which says, “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.”

Here (pdf) is the roll call for Senator Lanane’s amendment. Senator Long was among the 36 senators who voted against that idea.

Today is organization day for the Indiana General Assembly in preparation for the 2014 session. One of the pieces of business conducted by the Senate was adoption of SR 5 honoring former Indianapolis Star reporter, Mary Beth Schneider, for her work reporting on the Indiana General Assembly. That resolution is well deserved. She covered the State House since 1991. A good many of the items I’ve discussed on this blog since 2004 were first reported by her. I first came across Mary Beth in person when she was covering a time zone hearing in Logansport.

As good as her work in the paper has been; I think she really hit her stride when Twitter came along. The real time reporting was often fascinating. And, really, how else were we to know that what she wanted most in life was to be invited to the Rolling Stone Super Bowl Party?

Anyway, I’ll join in with the Senate, commending her on a job well done. I hope the Indy Star recognizes that journalists reporting on state and local policy issues is one of the ways that the paper is going to survive into the future and will commit resources accordingly so that future journalists can follow in Mary Beth’s footsteps.