This is a real page turner - the road to serfdom in 1017 pages, but there are fewer words per page - its Congress - waste more paper if you can.

[Selene]

Folks: <h1 id="message_view_subject">Yep this is what we really need "The Official Government NANNY Section - Pg. 838 section 440 of HR ___ the health reform bill</h1>

Imagine sitting on you screened porch with your child in your arms enjoying life, bothering no one, when approaching up your driveway past the Warning: Government workers not welcome sign is an armored Hummer with two Home Visitation Program Federal Agents inside.

T‘‘Subpart 3—Support for Quality Home Visitation Programs

‘‘SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.

‘‘(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.

‘‘(B) GRANT APPLICATION.—A State that desires to receive a grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary for approval, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require, an application for the grant that includes the following:

‘‘(1) DESCRIPTION OF HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS.—A description of the high quality programs of home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children that will be supported by a grant made to the State under this section, the outcomes the programs are intended to achieve, and the evidence supporting the effective ness of the programs.

‘‘(2) RESULTS OF NEEDS ASSESSMENT.—The results of a statewide needs assessment that describes—

‘‘(A) the number, quality, and capacity of home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children in the State;

‘‘(B) the number and types of families who are receiving services under the programs;

‘‘© the sources and amount of funding provided to the programs;

‘‘(D) the gaps in home visitation in the State, including identification of communities that are in high need of the services; and

‘‘(E) training and technical assistance activities designed to achieve or support the goals of the programs.

‘‘(3) ASSURANCES.—Assurances from the State that—

‘‘(A) in supporting home visitation programs using funds provided under this section, the State shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families or a high incidence of child maltreatment;

‘‘(B) the State will reserve 5 percent of the grant funds for training and technical assist

ance to the home visitation programs using such funds;

‘‘© in supporting home visitation programs using funds provided under this section, the State will promote coordination and collaboration with other home visitation programs

(including programs funded under title XIX) and with other child and family services, health services, income supports, and other related assistance;

‘‘(D) home visitation programs supported using such funds will, when appropriate, provide referrals to other programs serving children and families; and

‘‘(E) the State will comply with subsection

(i), and cooperate with any evaluation conducted under subsection (j).

VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00840 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:\TEMP\AAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Thank the five members of the Court who gave us the right decision in the Heller case.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Adam--

Are you aware that this sort of program is already in place in the UK? And it's not really that voluntary.

I'm less sanguine than you about Heller. I think Scalia wrote it in a way that actually guts the Second Amendment; there are very few gun banning laws that would not pass Heller's tests.

[Selene]

Adam--

Are you aware that this sort of program is already in place in the UK? And it's not really that voluntary.

I'm less sanguine than you about Heller. I think Scalia wrote it in a way that actually guts the Second Amendment; there are very few gun banning laws that would not pass Heller's tests.

Jeffrey:

Yes I am aware that this "sort" of program is already in place, not only in the UK, but de facto in many counties in this country, the ole US of A. I mean shucks Jeff, gosh I am so thankful to you for imparting that stunning news to me.

Secondly, since I read a few excerpts from DC v Heller and you being, what, one of them thar lawyer fellas, could you explain this here guttin that you writ about?

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Adam--

Are you aware that this sort of program is already in place in the UK? And it's not really that voluntary.

I'm less sanguine than you about Heller. I think Scalia wrote it in a way that actually guts the Second Amendment; there are very few gun banning laws that would not pass Heller's tests.

Jeffrey:

Yes I am aware that this "sort" of program is already in place, not only in the UK, but de facto in many counties in this country, the ole US of A. I mean shucks Jeff, gosh I am so thankful to you for imparting that stunning news to me.

Well, some people don't know....

Secondly, since I read a few excerpts from DC v Heller and you being, what, one of them thar lawyer fellas, could you explain this here guttin that you writ about?

Adam

Scalia wrote in the majority opinion that anything not as drastic as the DC regime might pass muster, and left the matter open for the courts to decide exactly what standard of scrutiny to apply to gun control laws.

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"

Those last two items on the list would allow almost any gun control law to stand, if the Court wishes it. Taking the opinion literally, the Court only required DC to issue Heller a license to carry a handgun inside his own home--nothing about carrying one outside the home.

Now, a future Court might expand gun rights, but given who gets to nominate justices for the next three years (at least), I wouldn't hold my breath unless the appropriate case comes up quickly. And it is well to remember that this was written by Scalia, the justice who is thought of as a staunch conservative.

[Selene]

Jeffrey:

Prior to this case, there was only one significant 2nd amendment case to even see the Supremes and it dealt with two criminals and interstate transport of a "weapon"

which kinda did not fit in with the law as defined in the Federal Statute or as "arms". The Supremes in that case refused to even reach the central issue of the amendment

which Heller loudly proclaimed.

The fact that it arose out of a Federal District rather than a state was even more unique. This decision as slim as it was is a miracle.

It verifies the most debated amendment in the first ten's critical issue. Possession of an "arm" as used is an individual right, not a state right.

This you consider "gutting", we disagree.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Adam--proclaiming the 2A is an individual right is all this case does. But it leaves a loophole for gun control and gun banning that allows anything to pass that's less restrictive than the DC regime was--and the DC gun control regime was extremely restrictive, meaning SCOTUS has plenty of room to endorse any kind of gun control in a future case. Scalia is supposed to be the arch conservative intelligence on the Court, isn't he? Yet he wrote the opinion. He could have written a much stronger opinion, but he didn't. Heller leaves gun control very much alive. And given who gets to make appointments for the next few years, I think it's a good bet that the courts in the next few years will interpret Heller in favor of gun control as much as possible.

Again, I point to the actual decision in this case--to order DC to let Heller keep his own gun assembled and ready to use in his own home. Not out in the street, just in his home--and he still needs to register with DC to do even that. (Admittedly, that's the result of Heller's legal strategy, but the Court could have sent the case back to have the constitutionality of the licensing requirements considered by the courts below.)