Rep. Sean Lynn

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.

As a public school safety measure, this bill requires that any door to a classroom will be equipped with a lock that can be locked from either side of the door. Many doors are currently not capable of locking from the inside. Locking the door(s) to a classroom from inside the classroom would enable precluding a school intruder from entering that classroom. The Act permits schools 5 years from the date of enactment to bring existing structures into compliance with this requirement. New construction and major renovations must comply with the requirement immediately upon enactment.

This House Concurrent Resolution urges the President and Congress to enact legislation that would reinstate the separation of commercial and investment banking functions that were in effect under the Glass-Steagall Act.

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 changes when the interception of certain communications is lawful. Currently, if one party to the communication gives consent to the interception, such interception is lawful. This bill requires that both parties to the communication give prior consent before the interception is lawful.

This is the first leg of an amendment to the Delaware Constitution to provide equal rights on the basis of sex. There is no Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution. While Congress passed the Amendment in 1972, it was not ratified by the requisite number of states by the 1982 deadline. Delaware, however, was one of the first states to ratify the Amendment. About half of the states across the country have passed Equal Rights Amendments to their state constitutions in order to provide protection against discrimination based on sex. Without an Equal Rights Amendment, women’s rights and protections are limited. This Amendment is necessary to correct a constitutional shortcoming, reduce sex-based disparities and to codify our State’s value of equality.

This is the first leg of an amendment to the Delaware Constitution to provide equal rights on the basis of sex. There is no Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution. While Congress passed the Amendment in 1972, it was not ratified by the requisite number of states by the 1982 deadline. Delaware, however, was one of the first states to ratify the Amendment. About half of the states across the country have passed Equal Rights Amendments to their state constitutions in order to provide protection against discrimination based on sex. Without an Equal Rights amendment, women's rights and protections are limited. This Amendment is necessary to correct a constitutional shortcoming, reduce sex-based disparities and to codify our State's value of equality.

Section 7042 of Title 25 of the Delaware Code lists the completion and cost of any capital improvements or rehabilitation work in a manufactured home community, as distinguished from ordinary repair, replacement, and maintenance, as a factor that may justify an increase in rent but only until the cost of the improvement has been fully recovered. Like Senate Substitute No. 2 for SB 23, this Act clarifies this provision by making the recovery of such capital improvement or rehabilitation work a fee under § 7008, the fee section of this chapter, so that it is a separate charge from rent and provides notice requirements regarding the fee. This Act provides a revised definition of capital improvement and rehabilitation work. This definition is placed in the definitions section of Chapter 70. Chapter 70 defines rent as including fees, preserving a community owner’s ability to enforce payment of the fee. By identifying this assessment as a fee, it is clearly identified as separate from a base rent increase. Senate Substitute No. 3 for Senate Bill No. 23 differs from Senate Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill No. 22 as follows: 1. It removes lines from the definition of capital improvement or rehabilitation work that conflict with the rest of the definition. 2. It adds the requirement that capital improvement or rehabilitation work must benefit the entire manufactured home community. 3. It limits the correction of deficiencies to comply with changes to building codes or laws enacted after construction was completed. 4. It clarifies that the community owner must still comply with other provisions of the rent justification law, § 7042(a)(1) and § 7043 of Title 25, before imposing this fee. 5. Permits a challenge to the fee to be consolidated with other proceedings challenging a rent increase under § 7042 and § 7043 of Title 25. 6. It adds that the fee must be collected at a rate of 10% of the cost of the capital improvement or rehabilitation work or over the number of years necessary to not exceed 10% of the rent, whichever amount is lower. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual.

United States Supreme Court case law and scientific research has changed how we think about juvenile delinquency. We know now that an adolescent’s brain is not fully developed until his/her mid-twenties which makes juveniles especially prone to making poor choices. In the landmark case of Miller v. Alabama, wherein the United States Supreme Court prohibited mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles, the Court wrote: “Children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes.” This proposed legislation would repeal and remove all minimum-mandatory sentencing schemes for juveniles adjudicated delinquent in Family Court because children are different than adults. Family Court judges and commissioners would still be able to impose a commitment to a DSCYF secure placement, but would now have the ability to exercise their judicial discretion to fashion an appropriate sentence for an individual juvenile.