The Certification of Adoption of Sustainability and Transparency Standards Act (the “Act”) establishes a voluntary disclosure regime to foster dialogue around sustainability and responsibility among participating Delaware business entities and their various stakeholders. Because issues relating to sustainability and responsibility are fact-specific and fact-intensive and may vary greatly depending on, among other things, the size of the entity, the nature of its business and operations, and the industry in which it operates, the Act does not prescribe specific standards, measures of performance or criteria for evaluating performance. Rather, consistent with the enabling approach of Delaware business laws generally, the Act requires the governing body of each entity seeking certification under the Act to adopt principles, guidelines and standards to guide its business activities in a sustainable and responsible manner, as well as metrics for assessing whether it has met its objectives. Although Section 5003D of the Act grants the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware (the “Secretary of State”) the authority and discretion to provide the form of application for certification under the Act, the Act does not contemplate that State officers will make qualitative judgments regarding the standards or metrics that an entity adopts. The Act also does not contemplate or require that State officers determine qualitatively whether an entity has been operated in a sustainable and responsible manner. The Secretary of State's certification is focused on information acknowledged by an authorized representative of the entity regarding its adoption of procedures to operate sustainably and responsibly and its commitment to disclose, at least annually, such procedures. To that end, Section 5003D of the Act requires an entity applying for certification under the Act to make disclosures regarding the sustainability and responsibility standards it has adopted, the metrics it uses to evaluate whether it has met those standards, and its performance in meeting those standards. The Act is entirely voluntary. The decision whether to seek certification is in the sole discretion of each entity. The Act imposes no obligations on any Delaware entities that have not elected certification. (Of course, any person or entity that misrepresents an entity's certified status may be subject to civil or criminal fines or penalties.) The Act does not impose fines or penalties on entities that elect not to seek certification, nor does it impose penalties or fines on entities that, having become certified, fail to satisfy their own performance standards. Moreover, the Act specifies that fiduciary liability shall not be imposed as a result of, among other things, the decision whether or not to seek certification or the failure to meet specific sustainability and responsibility standards.
Sponsored bills
This Substitute Act incorporates House Bill No. 222, and also makes the following changes to House Bill No. 222: (1) Creates a new Chapter of Title 10, which permits a family member or a law enforcement officer to obtain a lethal violence protective order. (2) Permits a family member or law enforcement officer to obtain an emergency lethal violence protective order in Justice of the Peace Court if the Court finds probable cause to believe that a respondent poses an immediate and present danger of causing physical injury to self or others by owning, possessing, controlling, purchasing, having access to, or receiving a firearm. The order requires the relinquishment of firearms to law enforcement and may prohibit the individual from residing with others who possess firearms, and grant permission to law enforcement to search for and seize firearms. If an emergency order is issued, the Superior Court must hold a full hearing within 15 days. (3) Makes clear that the Justice of the Peace Court and the Superior Court may, as part of an lethal violence protective order, order an individual not to reside with a individual who owns, possesses, or controls firearms. However, the Courts may not impair or limit the right to keep and bear arms of an individual who is not subject to an order. (4) Permits a respondent to request termination of the order in Superior Court wherein the respondent has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent does not pose a danger of causing physical injury to self or others by controlling, owning, purchasing, possessing, having access to, or receiving a firearm. (5) Creates sanctions for a person who provides false information in the affidavit or verified pleading in order to obtain a lethal violence protective order. (6) Creates sanctions for a person who violates a lethal violence protective order by adding lethal violence protective order to Section 1271A of Title 11, making a violation of the order Criminal contempt. (7) Changes the effective date of this Act to 6 months after its enactment.
This bill provides for election day registration for presidential primary, primary, special, and general elections whereas currently the deadline is the fourth Saturday prior to the date of the election. Moreover, same day registration at polling places will be permitted with submission of valid government issued identification or other generally accepted proof of identification.
This bill establishes in-person early voting for the State of Delaware. Registered voters will be allowed to vote in-person for at least 10 days prior to an election, up to and including the Saturday and Sunday immediately prior to the election at locations determined by the Commissioner. The Commissioner is also charged with determining whether such voting should occur by voting machine or paper ballot. All other procedures relating to conducting voting are the same as for election day voting. For statewide elections the statute directs that there must be at least one in-person polling place in each county, and an additional location in the city of Wilmington. This Act takes effect on January 1, 2020.
Every year, over 100 million animals are used as subjects of scientific and medical research, as well as for educational purposes. As recently as 2015, over 19,000 cats and over 61,000 dogs were used in research. In Delaware in 2015, 82 cats and 85 dogs were used in research. While some dogs and cats are still obtained from Class B dealers, most dogs used in research today are bred either in laboratories or by private companies that sell strictly to labs. After these animals are used, they may be euthanized even though they may still be healthy and suited for adoption. This Act requires research facilities that receive public funding to offer their cats and dogs for adoption instead of euthanizing them when they are no longer needed. Permitting private placement adoptions allows students or staff members of the institution to adopt these animals directly without waiting for a formal adoption process through the rescue organization or shelter. For dogs and cats not adopted by students or staff, this Act creates a clear path to transition cats and dogs from the laboratory or testing facility to an adoption center by requiring the research institution to enter into a contract with an animal rescue group or shelter that can offer these animals the possibility of living out the rest of their lives in a loving home.
This Act prohibits a person from purchasing, selling, offering for sale, possessing with intent to sell, or importing with intent to sell ivory or rhinoceros horn, except as specified. A violation of this Act or any rule, regulation, or order adopted under this Act is a misdemeanor subject to fines, imprisonment, or both, as specified in this Act. In addition to the specified criminal penalties, this Act authorizes the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control ("the Department") to impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for a violation of this Act or any rule, regulation, or order adopted under this Act. This Act authorizes the Department to permit the purchase, sale, offer for sale, possession with intent to sell, or importation with intent to sell ivory or rhinoceros horn for educational or scientific purposes by a bona fide educational or scientific institution if not prohibited by federal law. This Act does not apply to ivory or rhinoceros horn that is part of a gun, knife, musical instrument, or antique, as long as the ivory or rhinoceros horn component in the item is a fixed component of a larger manufactured item and is not, in its current form, the primary source of value of the item. The requirement that a bona fide antique be at least 100 years old is not a rolling time frame, but is to be a 100 year look back from the effective date of this Act. This Act takes effect 6 months after its enactment into law.
This Act prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession, or transport of assault weapons in Delaware, subject to certain exceptions. One exception relevant to individuals is that the Act does not prohibit the possession and transport of firearms that were lawfully possessed or fully applied for before the effective date of this Act; although for these firearms there are certain restrictions relating to their possession and transport after the effective date of this Act. This Act is based on the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (“FSA”) passed in Maryland in the wake of the tragic slaughtering of children on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The FSA’s assault weapons ban was upheld as constitutional on February 21, 2017, by the full membership of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in the case of Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017). The names Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, Orlando, Las Vegas, and Parkland, among others, have become synonymous with tragic killing of innocent, unsuspecting Americans of all ages and backgrounds, amidst a framework of federal and state laws that have permitted the purchase of weapons designed for the battlefield — not for our schools, our theaters, our places of worship, or our homes. Safety — both for the general public, as well as members of Delaware's law-enforcement community — is the objective of this Act, as it was for the FSA. And, as with the FSA, a primary goal of this Act is to reduce the availability of assault weapons so that when a criminal acts, he or she does so with a less dangerous weapon and less severe consequences. Relying on United States Supreme Court precedent from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), as well as the holdings of its sister circuits, the full Fourth Circuit concluded that the assault weapons banned by the FSA are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Fourth Circuit was convinced that the banned assault weapons are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Maryland had presented extensive uncontroverted evidence demonstrating that the assault weapons outlawed by the FSA are exceptionally lethal weapons of war. The Fourth Circuit also concluded that the evidence showed the difference between the fully automatic and semiautomatic versions of military-style weapons is slight. Further evidence considered by the Fourth Circuit that motivates this Act is as follows: (1) Like their fully automatic counterparts, the banned assault weapons are firearms designed for the battlefield, for the soldier to be able to shoot a large number of rounds across a battlefield at a high rate of speed, and that their design results in a capability for lethality — more wounds, more serious, in more victims — far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns. (2) The banned assault weapons have been used disproportionately to their ownership in mass shootings and the murders of law-enforcement officers. (3) The banned assault weapons further pose a heightened risk to civilians in that rounds from assault weapons have the ability to easily penetrate most materials used in standard home construction, car doors, and similar materials, and that criminals armed with the banned assault weapons possess a “military-style advantage” in firefights with law-enforcement officers, as such weapons allow criminals to effectively engage law-enforcement officers from great distances and their rounds easily pass through the soft body armor worn by most law-enforcement officers. (4) Although self-defense is a conceivable use of the banned assault weapons, most individuals choose to keep other firearms for that purpose. (5) Prohibitions against assault weapons will promote public safety by reducing the availability of those armaments to mass shooters and other criminals, by diminishing their especial threat to law-enforcement officers, and by hindering their unintentional misuse by civilians. (6) In many situations, the semiautomatic fire of an assault weapon is more accurate and lethal than the automatic fire. Finding this evidence and these conclusions by the Fourth Circuit to be strongly persuasive of the applicable framework of constitutional rights, and firmly believing that promoting the safety of the Delaware public and Delaware law-enforcement is a paramount function of the Delaware General Assembly, Delaware legislators file this Act in the name of public safety and with adherence to core constitutional principles.
This bill makes it a crime to sell, transfer, buy, receive or possess a trigger crank or bump-fire device designed to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle, making such weapon function more like an automatic weapon. A bump stock was used by the gunman in Las Vegas in October 2017. Violation of this provision is a Class E felony.
This Act removes language from the state’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program statute that unreasonably prevents law enforcement officials from accessing the PMP database when officials can show that the information on the database is relevant to an investigation or prosecution. This Act leaves intact the statutory right and responsibility of the Office of Controlled Substances to maintain the privacy of patients and patient information except under circumstances enumerated in the Delaware Code.
This legislation creates a benchmark for determining when a treatment or service is no longer experimental or investigational. When Medicare determines that a treatment is safe for its population, commercial insurers in Delaware may no longer deny coverage on that basis. This bill will remove inconsistencies for properly-evidenced treatments between payers.