Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels Signs NRA-Backed “Firearm Preemption Reform” and “Firearm Transport Permit Reform” Bills Into Law!

ndiana Governor Mitch Daniels Signs NRA-Backed “Firearm Preemption Reform” and “Firearm Transport Permit Reform” Bills Into Law!

Yesterday, Governor Mitch Daniels signed the “Firearm Preemption Reform” bill and the “Firearm Transport Permit Reform” bill into law!

 

Senate Enrolled Act 292, the “Firearm Preemption Reform” bill, passed the General Assembly on the final day of Indiana’s legislative session. SEA 292 passed by a 38 to 12 vote in the state Senate and a 77 to 21 margin in the state House. Senate Bill 292 would mandate a strong and meaningful statewide standard for all firearm laws in Indiana. 

 

This bill was authored by state Senator Jim Tomes (R-49) and was coauthored by Senators Jim Smith (R-45), Scott Schneider (R-30), Jim Banks (R-17), Brent Waltz (R-36), Brent Steele (R-44), Dennis Kruse (R-14), John Waterman (R-39), Brandt Hershman (R-7), and NRA Board Member Senator Johnny Nugent (R-43). The measure was sponsored in the House by state Representative Mike Speedy (R-90) and cosponsored by Representatives Sean Eberhart (R-57), Eric Koch (R-65), Heath VanNatter (R-38) and Terry Goodin (D-66).


Senate Enrolled Act 506, the “Firearm Transport Permit Reform” bill, passed in the Indiana Senate by an overwhelming bi-partisan 43 to 7 vote. This bill then passed in the House of Representatives with comparably strong support in an 84 to 13 vote. This bill would make important reforms to Indiana’s current “transport permit” requirement. It is currently illegal to transport a handgun in your vehicle without some form of state-issued permit for any reason unless driving from the point of purchase to your home or to your fixed place of business, or from your home or fixed place of business to a gunsmith for repair.

 

SEA 506 was authored by state Senator Jim Tomes (R-49) and coauthored by Senators Dennis Kruse (R-14), Jim Smith (R-45), Scott Schneider (R-30), Brent Waltz (R-36), Michael Young (R-35), John Waterman (R-39), Travis Holdman (R-19), Jim Banks (R-17) and NRA Board Member Johnny Nugent (R-43). The measure was sponsored in the House by state Representative Heath VanNatter (R-38) and cosponsored by Representatives Sean Eberhart (R-57) and Robert Morris (R-84).

 

2011 marked one of the most successful pro-gun legislative sessions in the Hoosier State’s history, with five NRA-backed firearm bills passing in the Indiana General Assembly an being signed into law by Governor Mitch Daniels.

New theory suggests some black holes might predate the Big Bang

This is just awesome, p.s. I love PhysOrg.com

Cosmologists Alan Coley from Canada's Dalhousie University and Bernard Carr from Queen Mary University in London, have published a paper on arXiv, where they suggest that some so-called primordial black holes might have been created in the Big Crunch that came before the Big Bang, which lends support to the theory that the Big Bang was not a single event, but one that occurs over and over again as the universe crunches down to a single point, then blows up again, over and over.

The idea is based on the fact that the Earth, and the rest of the known universe is occasionally bombarded with unexplained bursts of ; something that could, according to Coley and Carr, be the result of primordial black holes running out of energy and disintegrating.

See the rest HERE

Public Knowledge Urges FCC to Investigate AT&T Caps

Nice, glad others are urging this.


Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation say they've sent the FCC a letter urging them to investigate AT&T's new usage caps. AT&T this week imposed a new 150 GB cap on DSL users and a 250 GB cap on U-Verse users, with those exceeding those caps paying AT&T $10 per every 50 GB thereafter. While many companies now impose caps to help differentiate residential and business class services, AT&T is the first major U.S. ISP to begin charging users per byte overages -- a practice that is very common in Canada, but extremely unpopular among consumers across North America.

"While broadband caps are not inherently problematic, they carry the omnipresent temptation to act in anticompetitive and monopolistic ways," notes the letter. "Unlike competitors whose caps appear to be at least nominally linked to congestions during peak-use periods, AT&T seeks to convert caps into a profit center by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap," the groups insist. "In addition to concerns raised by broadband caps generally, such a practice produces a perverse incentive for AT&T to avoid raising its cap even as its own capacity expands."
Noting that "ISPs use network congestion as a pretext to act on other motives," both groups have urged the FCC to collect "no less than quarterly" anonymized reports from ISPs highlighting how caps are set, how often they're enforced, and what the average penalty per user is.

We've cited time and time again how North American ISPs are so eager to impose this new pricing, they can't be bothered to ensure their meters work properly, and there's no regulatory oversight of these limits, leaving consumers with little recourse when these meters prove to be inaccurate. Carriers have consistently stated they'd love to bill bandwidth as if it were electricity (despite being a vastly different commodity from electricity), yet they've lobbied fiercely to ensure they're not regulated like utilities.

 

See the rest HERE

Public Knowledge Urges FCC to Investigate AT&T Caps

Nice, glad others are urging this.

Public Knowledge and the New America Foundation say they've sent the FCC a letter urging them to investigate AT&T's new usage caps. AT&T this week imposed a new 150 GB cap on DSL users and a 250 GB cap on U-Verse users, with those exceeding those caps paying AT&T $10 per every 50 GB thereafter. While many companies now impose caps to help differentiate residential and business class services, AT&T is the first major U.S. ISP to begin charging users per byte overages -- a practice that is very common in Canada, but extremely unpopular among consumers across North America."While broadband caps are not inherently problematic, they carry the omnipresent temptation to act in anticompetitive and monopolistic ways," notes the letter. "Unlike competitors whose caps appear to be at least nominally linked to congestions during peak-use periods, AT&T seeks to convert caps into a profit center by charging additional fees to customers who exceed the cap," the groups insist. "In addition to concerns raised by broadband caps generally, such a practice produces a perverse incentive for AT&T to avoid raising its cap even as its own capacity expands."

Noting that "ISPs use network congestion as a pretext to act on other motives," both groups have urged the FCC to collect "no less than quarterly" anonymized reports from ISPs highlighting how caps are set, how often they're enforced, and what the average penalty per user is.We've cited time and time again how North American ISPs are so eager to impose this new pricing, they can't be bothered to ensure their meters work properly, and there's no regulatory oversight of these limits, leaving consumers with little recourse when these meters prove to be inaccurate. Carriers have consistently stated they'd love to bill bandwidth as if it were electricity (despite being a vastly different commodity from electricity), yet they've lobbied fiercely to ensure they're not regulated like utilities.