-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
STOP ERPO TODAY!!! - Light Up The State House Phones!
- Thread starter Mike S
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 938
- Likes
- 381
More accurately taxation without representation.
Appreciated. I know sometimes I'm at work and can't access/listen to a streaming video. I'm sure there are others who would like to know what happened.
Shaunna O'Connell of Taunton now kicking ass. "They can walk right out the door [of the courtroom] with no support, no protections for the public, and drive their car into the crowd. You are not helping people. You are talking about people who are in extreme risk or crisis."
Harold Naughton gets up to say he loves the passion, and would like to see it during the next budget cycle for mental health instead of right now. "Timothy McVeigh is going to happen no matter what." (did he just admit this will do nothing?) He says a judge could order a section 12 during the hearing. I am not so sure about that- gonna ask my wife (who works in mental health and has had to section people).
Man, I really can't stand Naughton.
The deception is very real. We really need to get serious and vote the scumbags out.
The one and only benefit out of this is that I hope those who want a stun gun who don't have an LTC already, get one. This could increase LTC holders here.
Durant now calling everyone out, saying something similar to O'Connell. Says nobody voted against mental health in the budget. We should be spending that money and this is one way to do it. "Parkland shooter wouldn't have gone home and said, Gee, I'm glad I got this pamphlet on mental health after they took away my guns."
"We just heard we have half a billion dollars, let's use it to get the help they need."
Markey of Dartmouth. He says it's a fantasy that the court wouldn't do anything about it, and would section someone. IMO, this is an argument that underscores the duplicity of the bill itself. If a parent can go to court and get someone sectioned and committed, why do we need ERPO anyway? Calls the mental health argument fantasyland. Directly calls opponents clueless.
However, he opened the door for Rep. Lyons, who rightly protests that judges ARE in fact letting criminals and crazy people out the door to commit horrible crimes and the sincerity of the amendment shouldn't be questioned.
Frost is back to kick some ass. Castigates the legislators that everything in the bill is already in the law anyway. Plus, "they've already been stigmatized because they've already been deemed dangerous."
Guys, I believe that the vote on this amendment is probably going to indicate how the threshold of proof will be received. I don't expect the debate on that to be any different.
Roll call time.
"We just heard we have half a billion dollars, let's use it to get the help they need."
Markey of Dartmouth. He says it's a fantasy that the court wouldn't do anything about it, and would section someone. IMO, this is an argument that underscores the duplicity of the bill itself. If a parent can go to court and get someone sectioned and committed, why do we need ERPO anyway? Calls the mental health argument fantasyland. Directly calls opponents clueless.
However, he opened the door for Rep. Lyons, who rightly protests that judges ARE in fact letting criminals and crazy people out the door to commit horrible crimes and the sincerity of the amendment shouldn't be questioned.
Frost is back to kick some ass. Castigates the legislators that everything in the bill is already in the law anyway. Plus, "they've already been stigmatized because they've already been deemed dangerous."
Guys, I believe that the vote on this amendment is probably going to indicate how the threshold of proof will be received. I don't expect the debate on that to be any different.
Roll call time.
The amendment 6 was rejected.
Amendment 4 was withdrawn:
"in the event that the petitioner and respondent are currently before the probate court on matters including but not limited to divorce; separation; paternity; custody; support; and alimony, that this word shall refer to the probate court where said matter or matters are pending"
Too bad. I think this is a good protection in the event of a vengeful ex. However, it probably has more to do with the fact that the court in question may not be appropriate for this.
Amendment 4 was withdrawn:
"in the event that the petitioner and respondent are currently before the probate court on matters including but not limited to divorce; separation; paternity; custody; support; and alimony, that this word shall refer to the probate court where said matter or matters are pending"
Too bad. I think this is a good protection in the event of a vengeful ex. However, it probably has more to do with the fact that the court in question may not be appropriate for this.
Is this still the current story? By the way, the number for Speaker DeLeo does not get you anywhere.
If there is something clear, complete, concise, and current that you want to get out there RIGHT NOW, please pass it on, and I will forward to our club members.
Thank you.
LATEST FROM GOAL:
4/17/18 Update
The legislation, (H.3610) was reported favorably out of the Public Safety Committee and will now head to House Ways & Means Committee. We will update with more information as soon as possible. At this time we have no timeline on when the bill might come up for vote again.
I would like to know why this was reported FAVORABLY out of the Public Safety Committee. I thought Michael Moore was the chairman of this committee, is he not? Isn't he supposed to be one of our biggest supporters? Mike? Jon? Jim?
4/17/18 Update
The legislation, (H.3610) was reported favorably out of the Public Safety Committee and will now head to House Ways & Means Committee. We will update with more information as soon as possible. At this time we have no timeline on when the bill might come up for vote again.
I would like to know why this was reported FAVORABLY out of the Public Safety Committee. I thought Michael Moore was the chairman of this committee, is he not? Isn't he supposed to be one of our biggest supporters? Mike? Jon? Jim?
Some minor things were adopted. Nothing really of note. Shawn Dooley testifying on immediately sectioning someone after ERPO (sectioning at the hearing).
By the way, in case any of you are wondering about sectioning, it doesn't imply that you are immediately committed to a mental health institution (this is how it's usually depicted in movies). It means you are required to be evaluated. A lot of times people are sectioned without being committed.
Naughton back up bloviating. "It's too big a cudgel. You're broad brushing here."
By the way, in case any of you are wondering about sectioning, it doesn't imply that you are immediately committed to a mental health institution (this is how it's usually depicted in movies). It means you are required to be evaluated. A lot of times people are sectioned without being committed.
Naughton back up bloviating. "It's too big a cudgel. You're broad brushing here."
Amendment rejected.
Unfortunately, it looks like I gotta run. Hopefully someone else can take up the task of watching the video and documenting the process here. It may take a bit before the video is publicly posted rather than just a live stream, and NESers (like me) are going to be wondering what happened.
Unfortunately, it looks like I gotta run. Hopefully someone else can take up the task of watching the video and documenting the process here. It may take a bit before the video is publicly posted rather than just a live stream, and NESers (like me) are going to be wondering what happened.
Bump
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 436
- Likes
- 180
Hence the implication there's a tape not actually having one.And public places have no expectation of privacy.
Mike S
NES Member
Also, a very telling sign about this being a done deal is the complete disrespect for any legislator speaking out against the bill. The house members are worse mannered than kindergartners and completely disrespected O'Connelll's speech.
One of the consequences of this crap is an increase in the number of guns in MA which won't be FA-10'd. That already went up significantly after Maura's 7/20 stunt and this will only add fuel to that bonfire.
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
More sham legislation that is going to be rammed through regardless. I expect that it will be signed by the governed late in the day on Friday before the long weekend.
Bob
disgusting, just disgusting
Mike S
NES Member
Voting now on amendment which would notify issuing authority of any other type of license that the licensee has been deemed an extreme risk...
....and it just lost 115-35
They literally just voted to recognize that a person is dangerously mentally ill and let them keep things like a license to drive a school bus
....and it just lost 115-35
They literally just voted to recognize that a person is dangerously mentally ill and let them keep things like a license to drive a school bus
Similar threads
