animal welfare, civil law and procedure, criminal law, disability, drug policy, family law, freedom of speech, guardianship, gun violence, housing law, immigration, indigenous agenda, lgbtq rights, policing, privacy, sexual child abuse, terrorism, women's rights
Because Belmont has been considering a new animal control law, I’ve been receiving some state law questions. State law vests authority for regulation of animals with local officials. General Laws, Chapter 140, sections 136A through 172 defines local authority over both kennels and individual dogs. Here are a few relevant sections. Section 136A defines terms, …
Continue reading “Local officials regulate dogs and kennels.”
From the Tenth Amendment Center at this link: http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/issues/ndaa/?doing_wp_cron=1397427336.5003750324249267578125 “The federal government, under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), claims the power to arrest and detain people within the US and deny them access to courts, attorneys and more. In short, this is little more …
Hi Will It may be appropriate to add a sub-category under “Justice” that deals with issues around controlled substances, particularly given the timeliness of the marijuana issue. At the very least, it would be valuable to discuss your position in detail — on decriminalization, medical, and legalization of various substances. Cheers, Adam
For information about the new gun buyback program in Belmont, please click here. If you have details on buyback programs in other communities, please feel free to add them as comments to this topic.
Will, There’s a bill in the house that would allow any adult to buy pepper spray without the need for a license. It has received favorable approval from many but is now languishing in the Ways & Means committee and, from what I’ve heard, is being tied to another bill. Given how quickly the legislature …
There’s been much understandable concern expressed over yesterday’s Supreme Judicial Court decision. In Commonwealth v. Robertson, the court found that Massachusetts’ peeping tom law did not apply to “upskirting.” Robertson’s alleged behavior was certainly invasive and from a commonsense perspective, criminal. The court summarized the allegations as follows: At approximately 8:30 A.M. on August 11, …
