Click here. Download Aug. 17 Hour 1. He introduces me @ 15:55 in.
One of the things about host-driven conversations is that you often don't have time or opportunity to fully explore, let alone bring up, all the points you were prepared to discuss, and I'd had two there was just no chance to get into, especially since topics were expanded in the second segment. Which gave us a chance to bring up some other good stuff, including NRA, GOP candidates and "I will not comply."
The first was suggested by colleague Laocoön, who emailed:
A so-called prohibited person should have recourse to appeal an adjudication to a fair jury trial, both for the right of the individual accused and for the public to keep a liberty check on any adjudication system, especially in quasi-criminal circumventions of jury trial like restraining orders, but also in mental adjudication cases. If someone is adjudicated to be unstable and dangerous, then they shouldn't be on the street at all. They should be in an institution. And they should have timely recourse to appeal to a fair jury trial to make sure it's not Soviet style adjudication ...I did get a chance to touch on that, just not to focus on it.
The second came from WarOnGuns Correspondent Mack H:
[T]his is an important piece of information to offer as a reminder: the fact the USDOJ proposed back in January 2014 to amend the regulations to 'punish' (my term) those who were committed to OUT-patient treatment. That was not at all what the GCA '68 architects intended ...Does Cornyn seek to repeal that odious, hateful provision? If not, why not? And where does the NRA stand on "outpatient" discrimination?Good points. I'd like to see answers.
Unfortunately, we still have no text. My guess is the response to those questions will be: No, because he doesn't perceive he needs to, and they're not even going to acknowledge that, let alone bring it up on their own.
2 comments:
We'll have to see if Cornyn's bill matches when the "official" text is received, but an "advance" copy is in the Congressional Record here: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/08/05/senate-section/article/S6384-1
(do a Ctrl-F and search for "2002")
It appears to focus on "required involuntary" in- and out-patient treatment. The "accused" also gets a hearing, with official notification and legal counsel present.
My biggest quibble off-hand is the inclusion of involuntary treatments for substance abuse. Most of the time, once the addiction is broken, the person is just as trustworthy as any non-drug-user.
Still not sure what the hold-up is on this getting into THOMAS, though....
Excellent catch!
Here is the PDF version - easier to read:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2015-08-05/pdf/CREC-2015-08-05-pt1-PgS6384.pdf
Post a Comment