[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

DeaTh noTice ... Freerepublic --- lasT Monday JR died

"‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much"

"Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use"

"Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet"

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: Massachusetts cops raided an 81-year-old’s home to cut down a single medical marijuana plant
Source: Vox
URL Source: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit ... 8/massachusetts-marijuana-raid
Published: Oct 5, 2016
Author: German Lopez
Post Date: 2016-10-06 11:02:16 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 14516
Comments: 71

Police hit the home by helicopter — to take a plant used for an elderly woman’s arthritis.

If you were trying to come up with a headline that perfectly demonstrated why so many people have turned against keeping marijuana illegal, you probably couldn’t do better than this real headline from the Daily Hampshire Gazette in Massachusetts: “Raid! National Guard, State Police descend on 81-year-old’s property to seize single pot plant.”

The story is just as absurd as it sounds. On September 21, the Massachusetts National Guard and State Police descended on 81-year-old Margaret Holcomb's home in Amherst using a military-style helicopter to chop down a single marijuana plant that they claim was in “plain view.” The raid was part of a broader operation in which police seized 44 plants in Massachusetts homes, with none of the property owners charged with anything — just their plants taken and destroyed.

Holcomb said she was growing the plant for medical purposes — to ease her arthritis and glaucoma and help her sleep at night. She does not, however, have a medical marijuana card authorizing her to grow pot, because she reportedly worries about the hurdles involved in getting a doctor to sign off on it.

Given those facts, it’s safe to say the raid did absolutely nothing for public safety. Stopping an elderly woman from taking a relatively harmless drug for medical purposes does no one any good whatsoever. As Holcomb put it, the raid won’t even stop her from getting marijuana; she said she’ll likely just grow another plant.

ChorusAds.showAd("mobile_article_body");

Yet police wasted time and money deploying a helicopter — likely paid for in part through federal funds, according to the Daily Hampshire Gazette — to seize not just Holcomb’s sole marijuana plant but dozens of others across the state on that one day. They argue the actions were necessary because the plants were in plain view and therefore illegal, even though Holcomb’s pot plant was hidden away in her fenced-off backyard behind a raspberry patch. (It was likely detected with a thermal imager.)

There’s a good chance that after November, this wouldn’t be something police would do — Massachusetts is among five states that will vote on whether to fully legalize marijuana later this year.

The raid exemplifies why these votes are happening. According to a 2015 Pew Research Center survey, 53 percent of Americans support legalization, citing its medicinal benefits, its relatively low risk compared with other drugs, the benefits of regulation and tax revenue, and the current financial costs of prohibition. The raid touched on all of these issues, from seizing a relatively harmless drug used as medicine to deploying an expensive helicopter to raid an 81-year-old woman’s home.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

"Holcomb said she was growing the plant for medical purposes ... She does not, however, have a medical marijuana card authorizing her to grow pot ..."

Hmmm. I wonder if that means I can carry a concealed weapon for self-defense, even though I don't have a license.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-10-06   11:15:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite (#1)

Hmmm. I wonder if that means I can carry a concealed weapon for self-defense, even though I don't have a license.

Only if you actually believed that that "shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

Which you don't.

Only a slave seeks permission from the state to defend himself, or to decide what substance they may use for relief of pain.

Deckard  posted on  2016-10-06   11:27:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#2)

Only if you actually believed that that "shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

The 2nd Amendment says "the right ... shall not be infringed."

It depends on what "the right" was defined as. The U.S. Supreme Court has not accepted the edicts of wacko dingbats on the internet.

The "right to keep and bear arms" existed in the colonies, was brought forth into the states before the union, and was protected by the 2nd Amendment from Federal infringement. The right which existed in the colonies came from the English common law. The Framers saw no need to explain to themselves what that right to keep and bear arms was.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp

Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)

5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

It has never meant a right to carry any and all weapons for any purpose. It does not mean that today.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/07-290.html

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

Certiorari to The United States Court Of Appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit

No. 07-290.Argued March 18, 2008--Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not 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. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition--in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS
v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
for the District Of Columbia Circuit

[June 26, 2008]

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-10-06   13:44:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 6.

        There are no replies to Comment # 6.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com