this should interest readers

alan

New member
Last year, without debate in either House or Senate, S. 1865 was enacted into law. With respect to CIVIL RIGHTS, this piece of legislation seems absolutely horrendous, which raises question as to how come it was enacted WITHOUT DEBATE. Were our "elected things" in a hurry to recess, for one reason or another, or was it close to "junket time", to close to bother with taking a look at proposed legislation?

Of course, our former protector of the poor, champion of the rights of Mr. Everyman, then President Clinton signed the thing, is anyone surprised?

Some have claimed that the time for "working from within the system" has long passed. The writer wonders if they might have it right?
 
Since I don't have time right now to look the bill up (at work), can you give us the gist of it?
 
Oatka, BAB and Legalhack:

Go to the following link:

http://www.senate.gov.

under 106th congress, type in s.1865, then click on PDF. The text comes up. The section entitled Mental Health Courts, is particularly interesting, or so it seemed to me.
 
Legalhack, BAB, Oatka:

You might also read through the following:

From:http://www.keepandbeararms.com

Written By: Jim Rarey
SOVIET STYLE MENTAL HEALTH COURTS IN U.S.

By Jim Rarey
jimrarey@provide.net
January 23, 2001



The Congress has quietly authorized establishment of not more than one hundred (demonstration) mental health courts in the United States. An amount of $40,000,000 (over four years) was authorized to set up the courts under the supervision of the US Justice Department.

The original bill (S1865) was sponsored by Sen. Mike Dewine of Ohio and co-sponsored by Sen. Domenici of New Mexico, both Republicans. However, it was rewritten by Sen. Orin Hatch (R. Utah) in his Senate Judiciary Committee and reported to the floor without a written committee report.

The bill passed the Senate on Sept 26, 2000 under "unanimous consent" (without objection). The House adopted it on Oct. 24th by voice vote under a suspension of the rules. President Clinton signed it into law on Nov. 13th.

Thus, there is no record of how anyone voted on the measure or how many were present at the votes.

That's the history. Now for the law's provisions.

The law would apply to all "preliminarily qualified offenders" defined as persons having,

"previously or currently been diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional as having a mental illness, mental retardation, or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorder, or manifest obvious signs of mental illness, mental retardation or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders during arrest or confinement or before any court.."

The term "mental illness" means a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder that meets diagnostic criteria within the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association.

It provides for continuing judicial supervision, including periodic review of "preliminarily qualified offenders" who are charged (not convicted, but charged) with misdemeanors or nonviolent offenses. The list of offenses that would subject a person to the jurisdiction of these "mental health courts" is to be developed by the Attorney General in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and any other officials deemed appropriate.

The law also provides for "centralized case management" involving,

"consolidation of all of a mentally ill or mentally retarded defendant's cases, including violations of probation, and the coordination of all mental treatment plans and social services, including life skills training, such as housing placement, vocational training, education, job placement, health care, and relapse prevention for each participant who requires such services.."

Would opposition to a "Gay Rights city ordinance" be enough to bring one under the jurisdiction of a mental health court? You bet. For years the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental disorder. About fifteen years ago they dropped that and added "homophobia" (disapproval of homosexuality) as a mental disorder. If this law were enforced as it is authorized to be, that would be evidence enough to make the person a "preliminarily qualified offender." Off to mental health court he would go.

Another (intended?) consequence of falling under the jurisdiction of a mental health court is that it would undoubtedly trigger the federal law prohibiting the ownership or possession of a firearm.
 
It would apply to "previously" diagnosted persons, and now bring them under the juridiction this "Mental Health Court"?? Wouldnt this be an "ex post facto law"?
 
DEAD:

Re your question concerning "isn't that an expost facto law", I'm not an attorney/lawyer, nor do I play one in the movies or on television. The Lautenberg Amendment, the one dealing with Domestic Abuse appears to be one. Never-the-less The Congress enacted it, which they shouldn't have, assuming that they had ever read The Constitution, and it has NOT been overturned by the judiciary, so it stands, as the law of the land. Things do get funny, don't they.
 
Uhhh... It is my understanding that the Lautenberg Amendment is not the law of the land. It died in the House after algore's vote passed it in the Senate, IIRC.

IIDRC, please correct me. :)
 
I would garner that there isn't a single person on this board that couldn't be diagnosed with some sort of mental problem or another. Our mental deviations make us who we are, and it is just a matter of degrees as to if those deviations make us mentally ill or within the "normal" range. When interviewing with a psychiatrist to obtain a position with the Sheriffs Department I was diagnosed (or identified being a better term) as being somewhat psychotic and something else I don't remember. I was worried since it is my mental health.

Turns out that the nature of my psycosis is that I was identified as being in the high-average intelligence catagory. A lot of folks in that category are psychotic in that they don't always believe the rules apply to them. I've never been arrested or committed any crimes of a heinous nature, but these courts could use that Minnesota something or other test to have me locked up as being mentally impaired. This was a bad, bad idea. Of course I'm sure that Mr. Orin Hatch's constituents know nothing about this bill he authored.

Folks, it is time to vote your conscience more than ever. Republicans aren't necessarily going to be better than Democrats. If you live in Utah, spread this word to your neighbors and friends and vote against Mr. Hatch. I'd even vote for a Democrat over this psychopath.
 
The Blues Man:

If memory serves, your understanding is incorrect. I would prefer it that you were correct, but as I said, "as memory serves", Lautenberg is law.

Should I be "all wet", someone throw me a towel, please.
 
KJM:

On the difference between Democrats and Republicans, I read somewhere, the following. D's are driving the motor boat, full throttle, toward the waterfall, while R's only have the throttle open half way.

It's bad enough that many people still pull or push the "straight party" lever, without much thought at all. What is even worse is that there may actually be precious little difference between D's and R's, while a third party candidate, for any of several reasons, hasn't got a chance, at least not within the foreseeable future.

Another thing that gauls is the following. With respect to ANY elective office, the concept and the fact of the "safe seat", where the incumbent is unopposed. This shows, with unfortunate clarity, that someone isn't coming even close to doing their job.
 
HI!

If the Lautenberg Amendment was struck down as an "expost facto law", as it should be, it would still be in force by decree of the BATF director as a Regulation. I refer you to this page of at the BATF website:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/domestic/opltratf.htm

With the relevant question of expost facto being addressed here in the Q&A section, answer #4:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/domestic/qa.htm

The main page is here:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/domestic/index.htm

Now I can only hope that the new director(I assume there is a new one under GWB) does not see things this way and will make changes, but I ain't holding my breath.

As to the question of someone diagnosed with some sort of mental problem I ask this question, "Why are so many kids on psychoactive drugs and seeing psychiatrists." Could this be a preemptive strike against future gun ownership?

P.S. As I type this I see an advertisment for a report on fox today(friday) that came with this headline(paraphrased) "1 in 10 american children have mental problems. Are kids crazier or are the doctors."

(now what did I do with my tinfoil hat...):rolleyes:
 
On reviewing input by various people, myself included in this matter, a couple of questions come, once again, to mind. Unfortunately, I do not have any good answers for them, possibly others might.

1. That without discussion, debate or public hearings, The Congress, our "elected things" enacts legislation, such as can have tremendous civil/human rights connotations.

2. That The Congress blithly enacts legislation that seemingly stands in flat contradiction to specific admonitions expressed in The Constitution.

3. That The Congress, in a manner that is at least questionable, passes it's law making responsibilities to political appointees and or faceless bureaucrats, as with " ..and The Secretary or his delegate shall promulgate regulations ...", where these regulations spelled bureaucratic decrees or edicts become, in effect, the law.

If such as this is acceptable, why trouble ourselves with periodic elections, and similar bothersome devices, why not simply go back to kings or emperors? When asked by a passerby, "what have you given us", Ben Franklin is alleged to have replied, "a republic, if you can keep it".

It seems, at this juncture, that the question has become, CAN WE, perhaps WILL WE OR HAVE WE?
 
Very Interesting Reading-

An article in the Anchorage Daily News on 1-23-01 has a judge mentioning the "disease" when sentencing a local cop killer. "You sounded to me as if that Waco, Ruby Ridge, paranoia, antigovernment disease overcame your intellegence, nonviolence" etc. Hmmm, it would appear to me that many people here are diseased? Suddenly the shinks decide who lives or dies? Roy
 
---The House adopted it on Oct. 24th by voice vote under a suspension of the rules. ----

They suspsend or break the rules when it pleases
them and the people whom we send good money to
say that these same laws should be enforced upon us
and that the Facist I mean pardon federal government should have more thugs oops agents to enforce these racist facisst
laws.
And some of us actually wonder how we got where we are
today??
Vote! How many people in the world get to
choose their own poison on a national scale.
 
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"It is the individual gun owner's responsibility to
understand and follow all laws regarding gun purchase,
ownership, storage, transport, etc." http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/info.shtml
(bottom of the page, next to last paragraph)

Yes, this includes laws that require women to submit
to armed rapists, grandmothers to get their throats
cut because they cannot defend themselves, and anyone
to submit to pretty much everything else the
bodyguarded politicians tell us to submit to.

Had our Founding Fathers taken this position,
Lexington & Concord would have been a line of
people handing over weapons.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from KABA http://www.keepandbeararms.org

LOL
nothing new up their.

http://www.gunowners.org http://www.ccops.org

Who were the greatest lawbreakers in history....our founding fathers

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither
 
Back
Top