Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: NRA Celebrates "Victory" - HR 2640 Awaits President's Signature

  1. #1
    Regular Member BluesStringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Madison, AL
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    GOA Alert-- December 20, 2007

    Please read the above link before reading my comments below.

    Read it and weep brothers & sisters. And if you're a vet who has ever visited a psychiatrist's office for any reason, related to combat-induced problems or not, better find a secluded place in the woods to bury your guns and ammo, because this law has the potential to set in motion your forced disarmament.

    I have always refrained from criticizing the NRA, even when I disagreed with them, because I believed the good they did far outweighed the bad. But I cannot refrain on this one. They blew it. And worse yet, they betrayed the very people that have supported them (and us) with everything from money to activism to, literally, their blood and their lives; our veterans. A sacred trust has been broken, the result of which should be scorn directed at the NRA by every American who cherishes freedom. They have earned mine, and believe me, they really had to go out of their way to do it. They had to betray their charter, their creed, their membership, The Constitution, and they had to betray me personally as a veteran and as an American Citizen. I believe that, with their support for this unamerican legislation, they have signed their own death warrant as a viable and/or influential PAC, which is just as bad for us as it is for the organization. No one won except for the uber-leftist gun-grabbers, who are now joined, for all intents and purposes, by the scoundrels who currently manage and direct the NRA. May they rot in Hell.

    We have one last hope of defeating this legislation without embarking in years of court battles. We must, en mass, write/phone/email President Bush's office to remind him of his obligation to The Constitution, and demand a veto of this horrendous betrayal of the public trust. You can email here: president@whitehouse.gov or you can go here and click on the "Send Message" button right under Bush's picture and compose and send your letter from right there on GOA's website. I'm sure many of you have other good ideas for imploring the President to veto this bill, so post 'em up and let's join together to protect ourselves from this run amok federal government!

    ************************************************** ************************************************

    Here is my recent letter to the President:

    Dear Mr. President,

    I write to implore you to veto HR 2640, NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. This legislation has the effect of denying by statute the unalienable 2nd Amendment rights of all citizens, with the main target of the law being combat veterans, the very people who fought/fight to defend and uphold said unalienable rights. This legislative assault on our revered Constitution has passed both the House and Senate, and only you, Mr. President, can stop this bill from becoming law, and I respectfully submit that it is your sworn duty to do just that.

    This bill has myriad constitutional problems including, but certainly not limited to, potentially disarming the most deserved class in our society; our veterans, denial of constitutional guarantees of due process and the empowerment of non-law enforcement and non-judiciary entities to decide autonomously when a citizen can or cannot exercise his God-given, constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. And this empowerment of doctors and lawyers comes with no requirement of full disclosure of their potential (and probable) anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment personal agendas. In fact, a doctor could just as easily rationalize the forced disarmament of a veteran being treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder on his or her STATED opposition to private gun ownership, and nothing in the bill would automatically prevent the government from disarming that veteran on those grounds. No judges. No wrong-doing on the part of the targeted veteran. No indictments and no juries, yet, according to this bill, if you sign it into law, you and the Congress will have substituted your own judgment for that of the framers of The Constitution as regards private gun ownership, private property rights, privacy rights and due process rights. You CANNOT allow this to happen!

    I look forward to news reports of your rebuke of this draconian legislation, and the Congress that authored and passed it, in the strongest possible terms you can muster in the coming days.

    Respectfully,

    Blues (Real Name & Address) Stringer
    Madison, AL
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    My letter:

    Mr. President,



    I write to you as a veteran who is horrified by the potential future consequences of this legislation. I am certain that under your administration this legislation would be appropriately enacted.

    In the future, administrations with less empathy for veterans and hostility towards gun rights could implement administrative procedures in the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs that unfairly and without judicial review strip firearms rights from our veterans.

    Stripping away the effective means of self defense from veterans that have defended our nation is a tragedy. Taking away the Second Amendment rights of any citizen without constitutionally guaranteed due process is offensive to liberty and, I believe, unconstitutional.

    As a veteran who has spent his life upholding my oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, I respectfully ask that you as our Commander in Chief veto this legislation. I would also respectfully ask that you insist that future legislation respect the constitutional rights of those that have pledged their lives to defending our country and its constitution. Our service members and veterans deserve no less.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.


    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    See:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/6915.html
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/3261.html



    So, tell me which situation is better:

    A) Being able to purchase a firearm when it is illegal for you to do so, but you may only find out when you are being charged with illegal possession of a firearm. And while you may have your rights stripped by any variety of individuals, even erroneously, you have no way to remove your name from the "denied" NICS list if it gets there.
    B) Being denied immediately upon trying to purchase a firearm, and then being able to appeal that denial.

    I'm going for option B. Anyone else? And, didn't we have this discussion on a thread a while back and conclude that this bill isn't actually disarming veterans?

  4. #4
    Regular Member BluesStringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Madison, AL
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    See:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/6915.html
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/3261.html



    So, tell me which situation is better:

    A) ....
    B) ....
    In my view, it's a Hobson's choice. Neither so-called "choice" protects our 2nd Amendment rights, and therefore, should be opposed by all gun owners and freedom-loving people everywhere.

    I'm going for option B. Anyone else?
    Not over here, but thanks anyway.

    And, didn't we have this discussion on a thread a while back and conclude that this bill isn't actually disarming veterans?
    Obviously you either didn't read the bill to come to this conclusion, or you cavalierly skimmed the pertinent section. To wit:

    SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

    (c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

    (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

    (A) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

    (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

    (C) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    If you refer to section 922(g)(4) of Title 18, US Code, you will see that this new legislation is not restricted by it, but rather, this legislation expands on the word "adjudicated" to include unspecifed "boards," "commissions" and "other legal authority." Don't take my word for it; read it for yourself:

    Code:
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=922
    
    (g) It shall be unlawful for any person - 
    
    (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has
    been committed to a mental institution....
    
    (g, continued) 
        to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess
    in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive
    any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in
    interstate or foreign commerce.
    The makeup of the "board" or "commission" or "other legal authority" is not specified, but more importantly, not mandated to be made up of a body that adheres to the due process protections of The Constitution. It might be confusing seeing all that legalese when only a few words, distilled down to the text's real meaning, are pertinent, so let's do just that; break it down. Basically what it is saying is.....

    The Federal Government may not provide to the Attorney General any record of adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if....

    ....the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability without a hearing by some doctor, or self-appointed "commission" or "board" of doctors and/or lawyers, or perhaps just some local anti-gun yahoos "officially" appointed by a Mayor or County Commission or whatever, because this law does not stipulate what constitutes a "legal authority!!"

    The GOA has it exactly right and the NRA has stabbed gun-owners in the back by supporting this legislation.

    Whatever you do, or don't do as the case may be, research this bill before you try to convince anyone what it does or doesn't do. Educate yourselves on the issue and if you conclude that it's so unimportant and insignificant that it doesn't require your activism, then shrug your shoulders and dismiss the rest of us as paranoid alarmists who see a run amok federal government behind every piece of gun-control legislation. That is your right. But I see it as not only a right, but a patriotic duty to stand against this kind of blatant subversion of what our Founders and our military, both past and present, has fought to uphold and protect; The Constitution of The United States Of America.

    Blues

    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    BluesStringer wrote:
    Obviously you either didn't read the bill to come to this conclusion, or you cavalierly skimmed the pertinent section. To wit:

    SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

    (c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

    (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

    (A) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

    (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

    (C) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    If you refer to section 922(g)(4) of Title 18, US Code, you will see that this new legislation is not restricted by it, but rather, this legislation expands on the word "adjudicated" to include unspecifed "boards," "commissions" and "other legal authority." Don't take my word for it; read it for yourself:

    Code:
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=922
    
    (g) It shall be unlawful for any person - 
    
    (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has
    been committed to a mental institution....
    
    (g, continued) 
    to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess
    in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive
    any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in
    interstate or foreign commerce.
    The makeup of the "board" or "commission" or "other legal authority" is not specified, but more importantly, not mandated to be made up of a body that adheres to the due process protections of The Constitution. It might be confusing seeing all that legalese when only a few words, distilled down to the text's real meaning, are pertinent, so let's do just that; break it down. Basically what it is saying is.....

    The Federal Government may not provide to the Attorney General any record of adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if....

    ....the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability without a hearing by some doctor, or self-appointed "commission" or "board" of doctors and/or lawyers, or perhaps just some local anti-gun yahoos "officially" appointed by a Mayor or County Commission or whatever, because this law does not stipulate what constitutes a "legal authority!!"

    The GOA has it exactly right and the NRA has stabbed gun-owners in the back by supporting this legislation.

    Whatever you do, or don't do as the case may be, research this bill before you try to convince anyone what it does or doesn't do. Educate yourselves on the issue and if you conclude that it's so unimportant and insignificant that it doesn't require your activism, then shrug your shoulders and dismiss the rest of us as paranoid alarmists who see a run amok federal government behind every piece of gun-control legislation. That is your right. But I see it as not only a right, but a patriotic duty to stand against this kind of blatant subversion of what our Founders and our military, both past and present, has fought to uphold and protect; The Constitution of The United States Of America.

    Blues
    Ah, well fortunately I have read the bill. So who can commit a person to a mental institution now? I may be wrong, but I've been under the impression that a GOA-approved judge is not necessary to commit someone to an institution. I'd also like to know how a person can get his name removed from the NICS denial list if he was erroneously or wrongly put there under the current system.

    Pretty much the whole argument against this bill seems to be, "well if this happens, then this could happen, then this and this and this and eventually it might be bad if everything fails that possibly could fail." Do I think this bill has the potential for bad things to happen? Yes. Is the threat enough to outweigh the benefits of the law? Nah. Is the threat serious enough to concern me? Nope. I'm more worried about HR 1022 and other such bills that directly and purposely strip large groups of people of their RTKBA with no means for appeal.

    On a final note, I don't like NICS. It infringes on our rights, and ideally NICS would not exist. However, in the current state of affairs where our correctional and institutional facilities do not keep away from society those who are dangerous to it, NICS is a necessary evil. So, while it's still here, why not make it more efficient and more consistant for those who need to use it?

  6. #6
    Regular Member BluesStringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Madison, AL
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    The question was answered for you in the second link you posted above by mark edward marchiafava in several posts, and I thank you for referring me to them. Some of his more relevant and salient points included:

    All this dialogue, all the articles, blogs etc, concerning this matter remind me of the inmates of a POW camp arguing over the design of their own gallows.
    By the very act of dignifying "their" unconstitutional erosion of our rights with dialogue, you are basically agreeing ALL our rights are subject to debate and negotiable. Just do what is right, REFUSE to negotiate, let nature run it's course and be prepared to (one day soon) do what the founders predicted would come to pass.
    By engaging the enemy in dialogue about their intent to violate you, you're basically admitting you're willing to compromise your 2nd amendment (and all other) rights away.
    "Tess" also gave you valid, logical responses to your and others' points of view. In that thread, and in this one, you claim that this bill is an improvement to another bill which you acknowledge is an infringement of our rights. When you can explain to me (and everyone) how one goes about lessening the deleterious effects of infringing on our rights without totally eliminating those infringements, then I will give a serious listen to you and others who just can't bring yourselves to envision an NRA that has squandered the support of those who cherish our rights, and understand them for the unambiguous gift from God that they are. Until that cogent explanation is forthcoming though, you are pissin' in the wind with me.

    You are basically making the argument that to choose the lesser of two evils is the path of least resistence, and as such, is the path we gun owners and uncompromising 2nd Amendment supporters should take. Well, my answer to that is, choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil, and like I said before, is no choice at all for anyone who believes in, and is willing to stand up for, freedom. Obviously you and the NRA are willing to negotiate your freedoms, and truthfully, that, in and of itself, is fine with me. The problem is though, that in so doing, you are putting me and everyone else who doesn't believe as you do in front of the muzzle in a game of Russian Roulette where, if you and the NRA are wrong and these negotiated "improvements" don't work as you predict, we, the people who fought and continue to fight against this legislation, get the loaded chamber, while you simply live with the choices you made for yourselves. You would be left with no one to blame but yourselves, while we would be left with the involuntary relinquishing of our rights. You choose what you perceive to be the less evil for yourselves if you want to, but leave us with the ability to choose right and freedom for ourselves.

    Blues
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    While I respect Tess and MEM, I can't see their responses as providing any answers. The arguments I have seen so far either fall into the categories of unfounded speculation or passionate rhetoric.

    How about this... from now on, all true patriot gun owners should no longer buy guns through NICS, because in doing so they are paying to support a system that infringes on our rights. Sorry, I digress...

    Once again, there's not going to be a sudden elimination of all gun control. We need to be realistic and work within the system because we cannot outright eliminate the system. If you, MEM, and other members of the board would like to sit around and keep writing letters to elected representatives urging them to ban gun control throughout the country in one fell swoop, while lamenting the impurity of the NRA, be my guest.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I recently enjoyed A Certain Ambiguity: A Mathematical Novel by Gaurav Suri and Hartosh Singh Bal, a discussion of the nature of truth.

    In it is a comment on post-moderns getting principled logic 'backwards' by finding the desired outcome/conclusion and then hewing to the premises legitimizing that outcome.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    As a Veteran potentilly affected by this legislation in a rather negative manner, I just want to say Merry Christmas....
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    As a Veteran potentilly affected by this legislation in a rather negative manner, I just want to say Merry Christmas....
    Care to expand on that? How would you be disarmed by this legislation where you previously would not have?

    I understand that it may be personal, so I won't hold it against you if you would rather not answer...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Actually, yes it is personal.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    You do know the recent changes makes it so that the veterans that were going to be denied there rights are now protected? Any mentally unstable person can seek to be taken off the list after they return to normal. It also forces police departments to update and delete erroneous and outdated information.

    Everything i've heard about the bill is positive. Im gonna to have to side with the NRA on this one.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    Cite specifics, please.

    HOW can people get taken off the list? Does it involves thousands of dollars in litigation to restore wrongfully-lost rights?

    Is there any reimbursment malicious gun-haters?

    Will the VA help?
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Having not read the bill i decided it was a good idea before i just parrot **** i heard. I'll post again when i have a full understandning of the Nics bill. I found the link at.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-2640

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    After reading through the bill (about 30 minutes) i have a better, if imperfect understanding. So far as i can tell this is absolutely not a gun control bill. I for one support this bill, it makes good sense to update the system.

    This bill gives a way out for people fighting the mental adjucation. And if you win the court battle the state pays for a portion (maybe all, its doesn't really say) of your legal fee's.

    I will copy and paste the relevant bits of the actual text and at the bottom of the page i shall put the court summary.

    Links -
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2640
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110ATOzeE:e0:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-s...l_b_77754.html




    (2) MENTAL HEALTH TERMS- The terms `adjudicated as a mental defective' and `committed to a mental institution' have the same meanings as in section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code.



    • (c) Standard for Adjudications and Commitments Related to Mental Health-
      • (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--
        • (A) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;
        • (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or
        • (C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
      • (2) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN ADJUDICATIONS AND COMMITMENTS-
        • (A) PROGRAM FOR RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES-
          • (i) IN GENERAL- Each department or agency of the United States that makes any adjudication related to the mental health of a person or imposes any commitment to a mental institution, as described in subsection (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, shall establish, not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, a program that permits such a person to apply for relief from the disabilities imposed by such subsections.
          • (ii) PROCESS- Each application for relief submitted under the program required by this subparagraph shall be processed not later than 365 days after the receipt of the application. If a Federal department or agency fails to resolve an application for relief within 365 days for any reason, including a lack of appropriated funds, the department or agency shall be deemed for all purposes to have denied such request for relief without cause. Judicial review of any petitions brought under this clause shall be de novo.
          • (iii) JUDICIAL REVIEW- Relief and judicial review with respect to the program required by this subparagraph shall be available according to the standards prescribed in section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code. If the denial of a petition for relief has been reversed after such judicial review, the court shall award the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee for any and all proceedings in relation to attaining such relief, and the United States shall be liable for such fee. Such fee shall be based upon the prevailing rates awarded to public interest legal aid organizations in the relevant community.
        • (B) RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES- In the case of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or a commitment of a person to a mental institution, a record of which may not be provided to the Attorney General under paragraph (1), including because of the absence of a finding described in subparagraph (C) of such paragraph, or from which a person has been granted relief under a program established under subparagraph (A) or (B), or because of a removal of a record under section 103(e)(1)(D) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the adjudication or commitment, respectively, shall be deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code. Any Federal agency that grants a person relief from disabilities under this subparagraph shall notify such person that the person is no longer prohibited under 922(d)(4) or 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, on account of the relieved disability for which relief was granted pursuant to a proceeding conducted under this subparagraph, with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms.
      • (3) NOTICE REQUIREMENT- Effective 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, any Federal department or agency that conducts proceedings to adjudicate a person as a mental defective under 922(d)(4) or 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, shall provide both oral and written notice to the individual at the commencement of the adjudication process including--
        • (A) notice that should the agency adjudicate the person as a mental defective, or should the person be committed to a mental institution, such adjudication, when final, or such commitment, will prohibit the individual from purchasing, possessing, receiving, shipping or transporting a firearm or ammunition under section 922(d)(4) or section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code;
        • (B) information about the penalties imposed for unlawful possession, receipt, shipment or transportation of a firearm under section 924(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code; and
        • (C) information about the availability of relief from the disabilities imposed by Federal laws with respect to the acquisition, receipt, transfer, shipment, transportation, or possession of firearms.
      • (4) EFFECTIVE DATE- Except for paragraph (3), this subsection shall apply to names and other information provided before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act. Any name or information provided in violation of this subsection (other than in violation of paragraph (3)) before, on, or after such date shall be removed from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

    SEC. 105. RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES PROGRAM REQUIRED AS CONDITION FOR PARTICIPATION IN GRANT PROGRAMS.
    • (a) Program Described- A relief from disabilities program is implemented by a State in accordance with this section if the program--
      • (1) permits a person who, pursuant to State law, has been adjudicated as described in subsection (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or has been committed to a mental institution, to apply to the State for relief from the disabilities imposed by subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of such section by reason of the adjudication or commitment;
      • (2) provides that a State court, board, commission, or other lawful authority shall grant the relief, pursuant to State law and in accordance with the principles of due process, if the circumstances regarding the disabilities referred to in paragraph (1), and the person's record and reputation, are such that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest; and
      • (3) permits a person whose application for the relief is denied to file a petition with the State court of appropriate jurisdiction for a de novo judicial review of the denial.
    • (b) Authority To Provide Relief From Certain Disabilities With Respect to Firearms- If, under a State relief from disabilities program implemented in accordance with this section, an application for relief referred to in subsection (a)(1) of this section is granted with respect to an adjudication or a commitment to a mental institution or based upon a removal of a record under section 102(c)(1)(B), the adjudication or commitment, as the case may be, is deemed not to have occurred for purposes of subsections (d)(4) and (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.








    SUMMARY!!! (Formating keeps getting erased.)
    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...p;summ2=m&

    Sec. 101) Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) authorize the Attorney General to obtain electronic versions of information from federal agencies on persons disqualified from receiving firearms; (2) require federal agencies to provide such information to the Attorney General, not less frequently than quarterly; and (3) require federal agencies to update, correct, modify, or remove obsolete records and notify the Attorney General of such action to keep the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) up to date. Requires the Attorney General to submit annual reports to Congress on the compliance of federal agencies with such reporting requirements.Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide the Attorney General, not less than quarterly, information for determining whether a person is disqualified under the federal criminal code from possessing or receiving a firearm for use in NICS background checks.
    Requires the Attorney General to: (1) ensure that all NICS information received from federal agencies is kept accurate and confidential; (2) provide for the removal and destruction of obsolete and erroneous names and information from the NICS; and (3) work with states to encourage the development of computer systems for notifying the Attorney General when a court order has been issued or removed or a person has been adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.
    Prohibits federal agencies from providing a person's mental health or commitment information to the Attorney General if: (1) such information has been set aside or expunged or the person involved has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring; (2) the person has been found to no longer suffer from a mental health condition or has been found to be rehabilitated; or (3) the person has not been found to be a danger to himself or others or the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.
    (Sec. 102) Grants states a two-year waiver of the matching fund requirement (10%) for criminal justice identification grants if such states provide at least 90% of the information required to be transmitted to the NICS under this Act. Requires states to provide reasonable estimates of the number of records transmitted to the NICS for purposes of granting such waiver.
    Requires states to make electronically available to the Attorney General records relating to persons: (1) t disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm; (2) convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence; and (3) adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to mental institutions. Requires states to update, correct, modify, or remove obsolete records in the NICS.
    Requires the Attorney General to: (1) establish regulations and protocols to protect the privacy of information in the NICS; and (2) report annually to the Judiciary Committees of Congress on the progress of states in automating criminal records databases and making such data available to the Attorney General.
    (Sec. 103) Requires the Attorney General to make grants to states and Indian tribal governments to establish or upgrade information and identification technologies for firearms eligibility determinations. Allows up to 5% of grant funding for Indian tribal governments, including tribal judicial systems. Specifies allowable uses of grant funds. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2010.
    Prohibits the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from charging user fees for NICS background checks.
    (Sec. 104) Requires the Attorney General to submit to the Judiciary Committees of Congress an annual report on the progress of states in automating databases of information for transmittal to the NICS. Authorizes appropriations.
    Provides for discretionary and mandatory penalties for states that fail to provide information required by this Act. Allows a waiver of such penalties for states that provide substantial evidence of reasonable efforts to comply with requirements for providing information.
    (Sec. 105) Requires states, as a condition of grant eligibility, to establish procedures to allow persons with disabilities relating to mental health status or commitment to obtain relief from such disabilities for purposes of firearms eligibility. Requires states to allow de novo review in state courts of denials of relief.




  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.google.com/search?q=void+...eness+doctrine 21,000 pages English only from G00gle.

    If a simple concept like "grab all guns" takes the huge number of such statutes reported in this case, then 'Void for Vagueness' would seem to apply.

    Unfortunately the invincibly ignorant are also so blind that they will make no effort to cure their malady and see.

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, MEF. "Next Year in Jeruslaem."

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA ******* http://www.nrawol.net



  17. #17
    Regular Member BluesStringer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Madison, AL
    Posts
    30

    Post imported post

    Nofoa, you're welcome to support any piece of legislation you wish, but I would ask you to answer a question or two about the following text that you just quoted from the bill:
        • [(B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or
        • (C) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    Focus on the parts that I have bolded. Notice that the referenced "boards, commissions or other lawful authorities" are completely devoid of any description or mandate saying what their makeup will be, by whom they will be appointed and under which statutes they are deemed "lawful authorities." That's a problem for me, but not the biggest one. These unspecified, nondescript government-empowered entities are not dependent on the courts being involved. It does not specify that they be overseen by any court. The language gives basically anyone who can worm their way into some low-level city/county/state/federal office the autonomous power to screw around with people's rights, and, according to this language, no court need be involved for it to have the force of law.

    Vagueness isn't the half of the problems I see with this. Bottom line, giving non-judiciary individuals or groups the power to make legal decisions that can grant or take away my rights, is, in and of itself, taking away my rights.

    Surely, if you can spend even thirty minutes trying to sift through this liberty-killing trash trying to find some truth that you can support, you have the ability to recognize the worst truths contained within it. The truth is, this is just another in a long line of government-invented word-smithing aimed at creating power and authority over you that didn't previously exist, by people who are not granted the constitutional authority to weild it, while bypassing the protections you enjoy now inherent in The Constitution. If you can honestly say these are good things after having this truth layed out for you, well, I guess that's your right. But that right, too, can someday be taken away by legislative fiat if we don't toe the line right here, right now. So enjoy your rights while you got 'em, because as crap like this gets easier and easier for a run amok government to slide through the Oval Office unobstructed, more and more of your rights are in line right behind 'em.

    Blues
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to Police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

    The following statement precedes the two statements. To me this says your records will not be forwarded to the Attorney General (The guy who runs nics) for the following reasons.

    (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

    I think this statement's vagueness is empowering for you. It makes it so that the state must accept any legal authority to remove your name. It doesn't say you must have a district court hearing, or a civil court hearing.

    Lets switch tracks and i'll try and think of this in another light. I once heard a quote, don't read the bill and think what it can do. Look at a bill and imagine what will happen when people abuse it.

    After this bill passes a big wave of psycologists get on the mentally adjudicated bandwagon. Over a 200k in people are put on the list, and lets even say most of these people aren't even dangerous. The doctors just pick and choose who goes on the list from a knee jerk reaction. So now you are sent this little note that says "Your on the list, your guns will be taken." So you rush down to the local gun store and sell/store your stuff. The sole reason people are getting put on the list is because it takes upwards of a year to get them back.

    So now the burden of proof is on the other foot. You have to go before a civil court, council, whatever the state has decided to use for removing people from the list. You convince them your not crazy, or a danger to anyone and within 30 days your name is expunged from the records.

    That is pretty nasty, but then again i think the domestic abuse thing is gay as well. So yes if left to abuse the state could just throw out blanket lists of patients. Its up to them to get off the list. Even with the possibility of abuse i think there is a way out. I still gotta support the bill, it ain't perfect but its vastly better than before.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    nofoa wrote:
    (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

    The following statement precedes the two statements. To me this says your records will not be forwarded to the Attorney General (The guy who runs nics) for the following reasons.

    (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

    I think this statement's vagueness is empowering for you. It makes it so that the state must accept any legal authority to remove your name. It doesn't say you must have a district court hearing, or a civil court hearing.

    Lets switch tracks and i'll try and think of this in another light. I once heard a quote, don't read the bill and think what it can do. Look at a bill and imagine what will happen when people abuse it.

    After this bill passes a big wave of psycologists get on the mentally adjudicated bandwagon. Over a 200k in people are put on the list, and lets even say most of these people aren't even dangerous. The doctors just pick and choose who goes on the list from a knee jerk reaction. So now you are sent this little note that says "Your on the list, your guns will be taken." So you rush down to the local gun store and sell/store your stuff. The sole reason people are getting put on the list is because it takes upwards of a year to get them back.

    So now the burden of proof is on the other foot. You have to go before a civil court, council, whatever the state has decided to use for removing people from the list. You convince them your not crazy, or a danger to anyone and within 30 days your name is expunged from the records.

    That is pretty nasty, but then again i think the domestic abuse thing is gay as well. So yes if left to abuse the state could just throw out blanket lists of patients. Its up to them to get off the list. Even with the possibility of abuse i think there is a way out. I still gotta support the bill, it ain't perfect but its vastly better than before.
    You're swimming upstream too, I see. I think the line of thinking used by many people who rally against this bill is "it involves anti-gun people, so it must be bad", and then they form arguments to support that.

    I'll admit that I was looking forward to AbNo's story, as I would like to see how this bill, in practice, would disarm people who would not have been disarmed previously. And I'm not talking about, "well, if some gun-hating psychologist seems me OCing, and then proceeds to run for local office, then forms a committee, and then hunts me down and tattles on me to NICS, I might be disarmed for a few weeks until I can appeal my case."

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    This is very simple for me: it's a gun control bill. End of story.

    Perhaps no bad will come of it's passing, but without a doubt no bad will come of it's failure to pass. Err on the side of liberty. No new gun control. The only gun bills I will support are ones that overturn gun control laws, period.

    So don't waste your time trying to convince me to support this turkey. NRA is not doing me any favors with this.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/art..._begin?mode=PF

    Mental screening for young to begin Mass. doctors to offer questionnaires for children on Medicaid By Carey Goldberg, Globe Staff | December 27, 2007
    As of Monday, annual checkups for the nearly half a million Massachusetts children on Medicaid will carry a new requirement: Doctors must offer simple questionnaires to detect warning signs of possible mental health problems, from autism in toddlers to depression in teens.
    The checklists vary by age but ask questions about children's behavior - whether they are spending more time alone, seeming to have less fun, having trouble sleeping - that are designed to trigger discussion between parents and doctors. The conversations may or may not lead to a referral to a specialist.
    Over the last several years, such questionnaires have increasingly become the standard of care in pediatric practices, but - spurred by legal action - Massachusetts is jumping ahead of other states by requiring the screens for all its young Medicaid recipients.
    The new requirement represents "a huge step forward in a direction that is a national trend," said Dr. Robin Adair, a University of Massachusetts Medical School pediatrician and screening specialist.
    Supporters say the screening can catch issues earlier, before they develop into hard-to-manage crises.
    Skeptics warn that more children could end up on heavy-duty medications that they don't really need.
    "In a more perfect world, screening for mental illness amongst children would clearly be a good idea," said Dr. John Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School and author of "Overdosed America."
    "But let's look at the realities of the world we live in," he said. "What happens is that there's a very quick translation of mental health symptoms into drug treatment."
    Others wonder how Massachusetts' overburdened mental health system for children will handle the new patients the screening is expected to identify.
    Already, children's psychiatrists and psychologists are often overbooked. Children with serious mental illness sometimes end up stuck in psychiatric hospitals for lack of mental health services in the community.
    If, as expected, the new screening requirement turns up more children with mental health problems, "I do think it creates a potential additional access problem," said Dr. David DeMaso, chief of psychiatry at Children's Hospital Boston.
    The new screening requirement stems from a lawsuit, Rosie D. v. Romney, that accused the state of falling down on its obligations to poor, mentally ill children. The federal judge in the case ruled in January 2006 that Massachusetts must improve its care, and the new requirement is the first step in the state's court-ordered remedy plan.
    Families may decline the screening if they wish. If a screen turns up signs of potential trouble, it is also up to the family whether to pursue further help and an official diagnosis.
    The new requirement applies to the 460,000 children and young adults covered by MassHealth, the state Medicaid program, at annual checkups from birth to age 21.
    The state's private insurers generally already reimburse children's doctors for such written screens, and Medicaid will now pay $9.73 to cover the testing.
    The majority of pediatricians still rely on conversational questions such as "How are you doing in school?" or "Does your child have friends?" But research shows that written questionnaires are more accurate at picking up potential problems.
    The tests can also home in on children whose problems might otherwise be missed. According to national estimates, about 10 percent of children have some sort of significant psycho-social problem, from hyperactivity to anxiety to stress from living amid domestic violence.
    "The earlier we intervene, the more impact we can have on brain development," DeMaso said.
    The screening is not meant to produce a diagnosis, but rather to act as a "check engine light," calling attention to a potential problem, said Lisa Lambert, executive director of the Parent/Professional Advocacy League, which represents families with mentally ill children.
    "If it lights up, you need to call your mechanic, find out what the problem is and if it needs to be repaired," she said.
    One of the league's family support specialists, Kathy Hamelin of Fitchburg, said her own experience as the mother of an autistic son has convinced her that expanded early screening is one of the best things to come out of the Rosie D. case.
    When her now 17-year-old son, Kevin, was a toddler, she said, he would scream and cry all the time, smash his head against the wall when frustrated, and flap his hands bizarrely. When she asked her pediatrician about the hand-flapping, he said, "That's nothing. That's just an excitement reflex and he'll outgrow it." In fact, she said, it is a classic autism trait. Kevin's diagnosis and treatment came only years later.
    If the pediatrician had used an autism screening tool, it might have sounded an early alarm.
    "Our family suffered tremendously because of this," she said, "and I just feel like if he had had early diagnosis, not only the pain and frustration we felt as overwhelmed parents would have been less, but we would have received early intervention," which "would have put him in a much better position than he is now."
    As the routine screening gets underway, the state will be tracking how many children are tested and how many screens indicate a need for follow-up, said Emily Sherwood, who is overseeing the state's remedy for the Rosie D. case as director of its Children's Behavioral Health Interagency Initiatives. The state also plans to expand mental health services for children and make them more family friendly.
    She said parents and clinicians may decide on a variety of responses to worrisome scores: to wait and watch a while. To handle the problems themselves. Or to seek a referral to a mental health specialist.
    The screenings in doctors' offices "help us understand mental health as a part of health," she said. "It's really up to parents and primary care clinicians how they want to use this tool."
    Medicaid law already requires that children be screened annually for various problems, such as hearing and vision loss, as well as for mental illness. This new requirement specifies the method of screening for mental health problems, asking clinicians to choose from among eight standard tools for the screening. Each screen is geared toward a target age; some look for specific problems, such as substance abuse and autism.
    Research suggests that the screens will boost the number of children referred to mental health providers - but not overwhelmingly.
    Dr. Karen Hacker, executive director of the Institute for Community Health at Cambridge Health Alliance, has used and researched mental health screening for four years, and has found that between 5 percent and 7 percent of children score high enough to cause concern. Other practices have found rates as high as 12 percent.
    But, she pointed out, many of those children were already in counseling. Some families decided not to pursue further help, and of those who did, many did not show up at appointments. She has not seen a dramatic uptick in the use of psychiatric medications since the screens were added to routine care, she said, though she understands that is a cause for concern.
    "We're going to have to see how this unfolds," she said.


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://www.boston.com/news/local/art..._begin?mode=PF

    Mental screening for young to begin Mass. doctors to offer questionnaires for children on Medicaid By Carey Goldberg, Globe Staff | December 27, 2007
    As of Monday, annual checkups for the nearly half a million Massachusetts children on Medicaid will carry a new requirement: Doctors must offer simple questionnaires to detect warning signs of possible mental health problems, from autism in toddlers to depression in teens.
    The checklists vary by age but ask questions about children's behavior - whether they are spending more time alone, seeming to have less fun, having trouble sleeping - that are designed to trigger discussion between parents and doctors. The conversations may or may not lead to a referral to a specialist.
    Over the last several years, such questionnaires have increasingly become the standard of care in pediatric practices, but - spurred by legal action - Massachusetts is jumping ahead of other states by requiring the screens for all its young Medicaid recipients.
    The new requirement represents "a huge step forward in a direction that is a national trend," said Dr. Robin Adair, a University of Massachusetts Medical School pediatrician and screening specialist.
    Supporters say the screening can catch issues earlier, before they develop into hard-to-manage crises.
    Skeptics warn that more children could end up on heavy-duty medications that they don't really need.
    "In a more perfect world, screening for mental illness amongst children would clearly be a good idea," said Dr. John Abramson, a clinical instructor at Harvard Medical School and author of "Overdosed America."
    "But let's look at the realities of the world we live in," he said. "What happens is that there's a very quick translation of mental health symptoms into drug treatment."
    Others wonder how Massachusetts' overburdened mental health system for children will handle the new patients the screening is expected to identify.
    Already, children's psychiatrists and psychologists are often overbooked. Children with serious mental illness sometimes end up stuck in psychiatric hospitals for lack of mental health services in the community.
    If, as expected, the new screening requirement turns up more children with mental health problems, "I do think it creates a potential additional access problem," said Dr. David DeMaso, chief of psychiatry at Children's Hospital Boston.
    The new screening requirement stems from a lawsuit, Rosie D. v. Romney, that accused the state of falling down on its obligations to poor, mentally ill children. The federal judge in the case ruled in January 2006 that Massachusetts must improve its care, and the new requirement is the first step in the state's court-ordered remedy plan.
    Families may decline the screening if they wish. If a screen turns up signs of potential trouble, it is also up to the family whether to pursue further help and an official diagnosis.
    The new requirement applies to the 460,000 children and young adults covered by MassHealth, the state Medicaid program, at annual checkups from birth to age 21.
    The state's private insurers generally already reimburse children's doctors for such written screens, and Medicaid will now pay $9.73 to cover the testing.
    The majority of pediatricians still rely on conversational questions such as "How are you doing in school?" or "Does your child have friends?" But research shows that written questionnaires are more accurate at picking up potential problems.
    The tests can also home in on children whose problems might otherwise be missed. According to national estimates, about 10 percent of children have some sort of significant psycho-social problem, from hyperactivity to anxiety to stress from living amid domestic violence.
    "The earlier we intervene, the more impact we can have on brain development," DeMaso said.
    The screening is not meant to produce a diagnosis, but rather to act as a "check engine light," calling attention to a potential problem, said Lisa Lambert, executive director of the Parent/Professional Advocacy League, which represents families with mentally ill children.
    "If it lights up, you need to call your mechanic, find out what the problem is and if it needs to be repaired," she said.
    One of the league's family support specialists, Kathy Hamelin of Fitchburg, said her own experience as the mother of an autistic son has convinced her that expanded early screening is one of the best things to come out of the Rosie D. case.
    When her now 17-year-old son, Kevin, was a toddler, she said, he would scream and cry all the time, smash his head against the wall when frustrated, and flap his hands bizarrely. When she asked her pediatrician about the hand-flapping, he said, "That's nothing. That's just an excitement reflex and he'll outgrow it." In fact, she said, it is a classic autism trait. Kevin's diagnosis and treatment came only years later.
    If the pediatrician had used an autism screening tool, it might have sounded an early alarm.
    "Our family suffered tremendously because of this," she said, "and I just feel like if he had had early diagnosis, not only the pain and frustration we felt as overwhelmed parents would have been less, but we would have received early intervention," which "would have put him in a much better position than he is now."
    As the routine screening gets underway, the state will be tracking how many children are tested and how many screens indicate a need for follow-up, said Emily Sherwood, who is overseeing the state's remedy for the Rosie D. case as director of its Children's Behavioral Health Interagency Initiatives. The state also plans to expand mental health services for children and make them more family friendly.
    She said parents and clinicians may decide on a variety of responses to worrisome scores: to wait and watch a while. To handle the problems themselves. Or to seek a referral to a mental health specialist.
    The screenings in doctors' offices "help us understand mental health as a part of health," she said. "It's really up to parents and primary care clinicians how they want to use this tool."
    Medicaid law already requires that children be screened annually for various problems, such as hearing and vision loss, as well as for mental illness. This new requirement specifies the method of screening for mental health problems, asking clinicians to choose from among eight standard tools for the screening. Each screen is geared toward a target age; some look for specific problems, such as substance abuse and autism.
    Research suggests that the screens will boost the number of children referred to mental health providers - but not overwhelmingly.
    Dr. Karen Hacker, executive director of the Institute for Community Health at Cambridge Health Alliance, has used and researched mental health screening for four years, and has found that between 5 percent and 7 percent of children score high enough to cause concern. Other practices have found rates as high as 12 percent.
    But, she pointed out, many of those children were already in counseling. Some families decided not to pursue further help, and of those who did, many did not show up at appointments. She has not seen a dramatic uptick in the use of psychiatric medications since the screens were added to routine care, she said, though she understands that is a cause for concern.
    "We're going to have to see how this unfolds," she said.
    Bringing out the straw man already?

    I'm waiting to hear how this is more than tangentally related to the thread.

    Good article, but OT, in my opinion.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    I'd say it's related.

    Massachusetts is trying to get people elligible for this 2640 list as soon as possible.

    Never mind the fact they are also potentially putting these kids on all kinds of pills before they are even done growing.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    AbNo wrote:
    I'd say it's related.

    Massachusetts is trying to get people elligible for this 2640 list as soon as possible.

    Never mind the fact they are also potentially putting these kids on all kinds of pills before they are even done growing.
    Cite?

    The last statement you made is valid but, alas, OT.

    "Believe nothing you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your pre-existing world view."

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Cite?
    Four-five posts up, depending on how you count.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •