AB1122. 0722 pdf [The pdf varies from this version slightly]
CALIFORNIA AB1122: Making “Abuse” Out of Legal Conduct
“Sale”- Display- Offering- of Live Animals Called Criminal “ABUSE“— But Not if Done by Humane Society,Rescue, Shelter?
Criminal sanctions imposed for ‘Violation’ Adds Penal Code 597.4 to the CA Penal Code, therefore everyone in the state of CA faces this law! NO actual abuse need be shown. WHY ISN’T EVERYONE VERY MAD AT THIS ABSURD AND ILLEGAL LAW????
So an actual abused animal could be shown by a rescue, and this law would not apply. A NON abused animal could be shown by NON rescue, and this law WOULD APPLY, and one would be sanctioned under the Penal Code for “ABUSE.”
Find out how, if you were accused of “displaying” and your dog jumped from your vehicle to another person’s vehicle, you could be found guilty under this law. People are astounded to think that this could happen? Well, it easily can. Ownership can be signified by possession in many instances. Isn’t it true that ARs claim if you feed an animal for X days, it becomes “yours” for their AR laws? Yep.
What is the Actual Intent Behind this Bill? Proponents are basically Animal Rights groups using another “name” rather than their actual corporate industry titles. Using the “name” California Animal Association is done purposely so it might appear to be concerned animal owners. However, PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, Born Free, United Animal Nations and others, are all Animal Rights groups in existence.
HSUS’ credibility has been severely undermined, particularly after the national video exposing their tactics was released in May 2009, wherein HSUS attempted to squelch it and claimed it was not the truth. Ah, but it was–and that’s why HSUS wanted it taken down. It seems that HSUS solicitations via mail, in interstate commerce, imply that HSUS’ funds go to running shelters and saving homeless animals. A deceptive and purposely designed strategy to obtain those cash crop donations. Yet most of HSUS’ companion animal bills, try not to save any animals, but instead are anti-pet in nature, just like this proposed bill, which aims to punish legal conduct by claiming there is abuse, when, as you will see, there could be absolutely NO abuse, and yet this law would punish someone FOR abuse, simply by engaging in a legal act.
While this corporate shell game of which groups actually sponsor the bill keeps coming back with “exemptions” on this proposed bill— we should be highly questioning not only the exact WORDING of the bill— but also the REAL intent behind the deception of alleged “abuse.”
A particular concern in this bill, is whether conviction (as infraction, misdemeanor) will trigger provisions of other laws, which might mean an owner could lose all pets via forfeiture? A person might have two animals and receive two counts and two convictions, and there is no appeal? Where is the potential for abusive discretion by citing officers who might decide someone is “selling” or “offering” without even knowing what the two parties are actually doing? What type of corroborating witness is needed for such an “infraction” and will the alleged animal be seized without notice? What if I didn’t actually own the animal and was just there to transport it?
Would I be facing a future misdemeanor if I was innocent of the charge, and then I caught a stray animal by the side of the road, picked it up, and when I brought it back to my car and went to the parking lot of the drugstore to call a friend who does animal rescue, and he shows up to examine the dog, I am now accused of count two, which is a misdemeanor? Would my pets be seized? Would animal control issue a forcible warrant to seize my property, claiming I was selling animals in the street?
If you think this is too farfetched, then you haven’t lived in areas where animal control think they are the Police from Animal Planet.
It is a well known, and well-worn-out-fact: Animal Rights and their lifestyle “belief” that ANIMALS ARE NOT PROPERTY, indicates that the premise and foundation of Animal Rights means that every single law devised, stems from the belief that animals are not property in the law, even though animals clearly ARE property IN THE LAW.
If we then take the belief that animals are NOT property according to Animal Rights, it becomes very clear and evident, that if one can simply envision a LAW that proscribes certain conduct as CRIMINAL—– then voila!!! To manufacture perceived “abuse”—Animal Rights must MAKE UP conduct that is completely LEGAL, but where they categorize legal conduct in such a way that we MUST believe it is actually A-B-U-S-E !!In order to package, prepare, and get ordinary people to LOOK for alleged “abuse, abuse, abuse” in everyday conduct, Animal Rights must employ some or all of this:
(1) Manufactured reasoning making common conduct which is legal —and which is NOT abuse ======> INTO “abuse” with criminal sanctions
(2) Manufactured BELIEF that such common conduct is actually “CRIMINAL” in nature….for example, the HSUS attempted to pass a law that made possession of a dog with cropped ears, a prima facie FELONY.
(3) Irrational and Illogical thinking must be employed, to convince logical persons– that offering an animal for free, at no cost, at no charge, without any consideration, or even for $5.00, if the animal is “displayed” —IS A CRIME if done in public, if done at a park, if done near or at a “parking lot” of a large pet supply store, or a restaurant that is often used to meet persons you don’t know personally, or outside a coffee shop, or a library, or even the parking area of AN ANIMAL SHELTER, or animal rescue facility. OR, even in a private parking lot owned by the person accepting the animal.
There is nothing in the proposed bill which gives criteria which outlines “commercial” transaction, but instead, the bill contains elements which would indicate a non sale or transfer, as part of the “commercial” transaction. Commercial usually indicates commerce, buying and selling. Transferring an animal without more is neither buying nor selling, and giving away is not a commercial act. Willfully displaying an animal to re-home or transport an animal is not a crime; and purposely viewing an animal is not a crime. Therefore, the meaning as written actually consists of:
1. Willfully selling
2. Willfully displaying
3. Willfully offering for sale
4. Willfully giving away as part of a “commercial transaction” (not defined in bill)–but note, the words “as an inducement to” are not present in the bill
5. A live animal on any street, (apparently even a private street), highway, public right of way (would include just about anywhere outside including the sidewalk of your front yard)
6. A live animal on any commercial parking lot (it is assumed commercial would include any and all businesses of any type or size, regardless if city, state or government owned) Although they amended it by removing “commercial”, the parking lot still remains. Therefore ANY parking lot is included, which means the owner of a pet store cannot show, display or offer any animal outside the pet store, especially if the area immediately outside is considered part of a “parking lot.”
Someone tryint to show a pet to a prospective new owner cannot show, display or offer the dog or cat or whatever, and then transfer the animal in a parking lot. But an animal rescue COULD.
7. A live animal at any outdoor special sale (does not say garage sale, rummage sale, estate sale, or charity sales are not included, but swap meets and flea markets are exempted?) This was later removed from the proposed law.
8. A live animal at a parking lot sale (private lot included; so if a large Lexus dealership helped to sponsor re-homing of 10 homeless cats, 3 dogs, 2 rabbits, 3 birds by a private volunteer, to help a community group of school kids, under a tent on the lot, this would be criminal) This was later removed from the proposed law.
9. A live animal at a carnival or boardwalk. (Could include a private school property, PTA or rural community project, where homeless animals could be shown or displayed, but not necessarily sold or transferred, but this would be illegal also)
(4) Deception must be used to get intelligent persons to believe, that “because” of alleged abuse, abuse, abuse, that it is now CRIMINAL to attempt to display an animal, a homeless animal, or anything that can be placed in the animal category that is not a person, in a public place, if I would like to sell it, OR even give it away—- even if I am donating the animal proceeds, if any, to a worthy cause or even to an animal rehabilitator or Trainer, educator, volunteer, or just plain new OWNER. While the word “sale” might imply there will be a monetary exchange, that is not specified in the bill. A sale at any cost, or NO cost could still be applicable, including the “display” of an animal, even if not sold, but just transferred.
Common sense is completely lacking in this ill-devised bill. There is absolutely NO factual data, no factual evidence, and no proof that indicates the entire state of California needs to stop anyone from giving away, selling or transferring an animal to a new home BECAUSE of “alleged” ABUSE. In fact, this bill is claimed to be “SALE[s] of live animal” YET the actual wording of the bill is NOT just about live animal “sales”, but goes much, much further and attempts to include ‘giving away’ and “displaying” into the commercial realm as abuse–but only in certain locations.
Proponents of this nonsensical garbage want us to BELIEVE that giving away an animal, or proposing to display an animal, or even showing someone an animal can be construed as “abuse” when in fact, proponents do not actually have a basis for “abuse” at all, because the location “IS the abuse” of this bill.
Quite frankly, from a legal standpoint, non profit groups or rescues [which, like HSUS, PETA, and most others], sell tons of commercial products and services, AND are not excluded from interstate commerce. Simply because they might help rescue/sell animals or engage in commercial transactions and services, this proposed law is about commercial sales, of which the non profits engage in, when they sell an animal, or any products, books, videos, services, etc.
Even if a non profit is exempted from paying federal tax on profit, that does not mean the sale is not included in interstate commerce. The fact that the sales are reported is enough to make it a commercial transaction, and most of such groups use contractual agreements in the exchange. All of these things point to commerce in pets or animals, services involving animals, and running fee based pet expos, fee based animal class education, fee based publishing service guides, books against owning reptiles, and far more. Whether it be a horse, fish, dog or cat, it does not matter. So exempting a non profit group has no basis, since it is just another part of interstate commerce which gets people to spend money via services, products, donations, videos, pet related clothing, evaluations, and much more. All of this involves the spending of money and sales of goods and services.
This bill is nothing but subterfuge, in an attempt to limit the venues that ordinary people can use, for normal, lawful transactions, rather than inside their own homes—-to show an animal to another person; to display an animal to another person, regardless of who it is– known or unknown; and we all know WHY this law is proposed.
The purposeful intent of this ridiculous bill is done with the purpose to concede that COMMERCIAL transactions [which usually means a sale or agreement to transfer or sell goods] –are being made a crime, because Animal Rights CLAIM it is “ABUSE.”
By passing a law which criminalizes legal conduct as “abuse”, the AR teams will then MOVE forward to create more laws, only worse.
The term “commercial” is generic terminology for buying and selling; and according to Black’s Law Dictionary, is related to or connected WITH TRADE AND TRAFFIC OR COMMERCE IN GENERAL. Commerce in general, easily means interstate commerce, which has to do with buying and selling, not necessarily profiting.
What case law or citations are shown, which indicate that certain public venues are considered “abuse” for purposes of this law? A non-legal substance, or a prohibited chemical, or other tainted property which is in and of itself ILLEGAL to possess—might be the basis of a transaction which makes it a criminal offense, i.e, buying or selling illegal narcotics, selling fraudulent goods, buying or selling prescription drugs without the proper authority, etc.
However, one does not have to be guilty of actual abuse under this proposed bill, to be convicted under an abuse provision. Therefore, one would and could be convicted under a criminal code for an abuse violation, because the given intent of this bill was based upon alleged abuse, and is placed under the Penal code.
In any estimation, this would appear to set up anyone for subsequent forfeiture or seizure of pets owned, or mandated sterilization, given that other proposed bills by proponents, clearly are attempting to obtain mandated altering as a penalty for any violations involving animals, and garner seizure of, or forfeiture of, intact animals; in addition, this may count against an owner even though it is alleged as an infraction on a first offense.
I could be at a community garage sale, in front of the neighbor’s house, standing on a sidewalk, and be criminally guilty of displaying a dog to another.
Do we realize how ludicrous this is? Do any of us realize what is happening here? This proposed piece of garbage “legislation” ought to be completely trashed.
It would be impossible to take this garbage and make it into a sensible piece of law. As stated, this entire nonsense is simply premised upon the notion that animals are not property, so therefore Animal Rights can tell the rest of the STATE that one cannot give, show, or display or sell their own animal, or someone else’s animal for that matter—in a public venue that they have selected. Just because one jurisdiction was foolish enough to listen to Animal Rights does not mean we need to further that agenda by going along for the ride.
Anyone with any semblance of intelligence is going to realize that if someone wishes to bestow an animal for $35.00 on another, it is something they should be able to do freely, even if they want to get out of their car in a parking lot anywhere in the state.What is the criminal element of a parking lot? Due to privacy concerns, tons of people these days are afraid or unwilling to invite people to their homes.
It is a known fact that people who may sell something from their home risk being accosted by would-be buyers down the line. Many people don’t want their telephone numbers listed in phone books. Many people want to re-home their animals rather than PLACE or surrender them to shelters. Many volunteers help transfer animals to either transporters, or other secondary locations at night or odd hours depending on what times they are available to “MEET” the other parties.
Here is just one small example: If animals are pulled from shelters or have to be moved from a location and are arranged to be taken by volunteers which are not rescues (but could be trainers, educators, behaviorist or teachers) or are simply willing to be foster families to see if they might eventually keep the animal in question, most often such transfers do not pick up and deliver directly to the homes of the second party or parties. Therefore, most transports meet in a public location, and not necessarily inside a structure, since you are transferring animals, and most “inside” places do not allow animals. The same applies to anyone who meets halfway between two points (such as different cities) to transfer animals to new homes.
Many owners that can no longer keep their pets are embarrassed or depressed to have to find such pets homes, and they are not likely to stride gleefully into the pet store to have to give away their family pet. Giving away an animal is not necessarily easy to do, but if one has found another family which appears suitable, should it be a crime to show the pet at a park?
Should it be a crime because the dog climbed into the new owner’s truck in the parking lot of the park area? We don’t think so, because this has absolutely NOTHING to do with abuse. Should a dog show in a park be outlawed because it’s on public property? According to the “exemptions” named, an animal must be sold inside, meaning all such shows are being held inside [if they want to show or display] for sale.
Specific issues claimed by proponents allege that “abused” animals are being sold. If an “abused” animal is actually being sold, the location of the transaction is not necessary for it to be “abuse” but rather the condition of the animal, or lack of whatever it is that might constitute the alleged “abuse.”
For those situations, even if animals were being sold, are proponents saying that they don’t have the inclination to give citations to these “sellers” but want a law so they won’t have to give out such citations? If such sellers then locate such transfers into locations that are not publicly visible, does that STOP the abuse? Does not being able to see the transaction mean there will be LESS abuse?
The logical answer is that this law will actually INCREASE such acts, even if there is ONLY “alleged” abuse. Surely if such abuse was present, would it not be easier to witness it firsthand and squelch it—if in fact, it actually WAS alleged abuse?
The overall tone and premise of this proposed “abuse” bill, is completely lacking in both logic and reason. To think that one would become a criminal to re-home an animal, but if one were to step 10 feet inside, one would NOT be a criminal, is just plain absurd.
It’s not as if we are gambling and it is legal inside the gambling establishment only. We are not talking about being drunk or having sex in public, which is actually tolerated fairly well in this state. Instead, we are asked to believe that the specific venues chosen by Animal Rights, make those venues ILLEGAL, and that actual legal commercial transactions, which means usually buying or selling, has now morphed into including giving away, displaying or offering AS PART of a commercial transaction [which means buying-selling.]
We have read laws involving animals, but have yet to see a proposed bill for an entire State that was so utterly devoid of any practical, useful, logical, or redeeming value as this bill. The entire bill is simply built upon a sham foundation, for which we are to BELIEVE that proponents allege, is “abuse.” By passing this bill, we would be creating more of this “alleged” abuse because those engaging in the “criminal” acts would be hidden from view, but as it stands now, they are right out in the open where you can give them a citation?
Attempting to carve out “exceptions?Not all animal shows or exhibits or trade shows, offer to display animals in competition. An event which is not a competition is not necessarily judged. For example, a demonstration of weight pull ability, or dock jumping, or swimming can be done on public property, but it is not necessarily always for competition and judging. “
Therefore those events and others, would be stricken as “abuse” since it lacks at least one of the listed elements. Playing frisbee with a pet is not necessarily judged, nor is it necessarily competition even if there are other competitors. Worse, the listed required “circumstances” such as (B), needed for a dog, cat or bird show, requires that “each and every participant” complies with all federal, state, and local animal welfare and animal control laws.
Since every state and local jurisdiction has DIFFERING animal control laws, and since every participant will not likely KNOW every single law of every jurisdiction in regard to every single state, federal, and local animal welfare and animal control law, an alleged “violation” of ANY type in this case, would seem to invalidate the entire “exemption” per se, due to a possible circumstance.
In addition, many local jurisdictions have animal laws predicated only on certain types of animals, but do not include all animals. Under this proposed “law” tropical fish, all reptiles, mice, or any animals NOT specifically listed with 4-H, future Farmers or state fairs, agricultural fairs or county fairs, and other small mammals not named, are not exempted.
Since case law has already determined that a goldfish may be considered an animal, it is apparent that the trading and display of a fish in a plastic bag [fish are usually sold then transported in plastic bags or containers] does not merit an exemption. In Texas, an animal only means domesticated living creature, and wild living creature previously captured; in Virginia, animals include birds and fowl, but in South Carolina, it does not include fowl. In Missouri, animals must be mammals. In Maine, animals means everything but humans. And that is just a very, very small sample of some jurisdictions, for some versions of specific laws.
It is already “illegal” in California to offer for sale, sell, barter or give away on a street or highway, as an inducement to enter a contest, game, competition or to enter a place of amusement or place of business, a chick, rabbit, duck or fowl. Had proponents modified that provision by adding other animals to the existing list, that would be one thing. But proponents are NOT doing that here.
Furthermore, a “second” offense of this proposed legislation makes the “crime” equivalent to a current law [misdemeanor] for example, whereby attaching a live animal to a powered device or machine (likely a vehicle) so it could be pursued by dogs (as in using a dog for baiting other dogs, or in dragging the dog to death, to inspire other dogs to further harm it.) It is not believed that being in a location outside to re-home or even sell a cat or homeless animal is comparable to dragging a dog to death for sport, but proponents set up the punishment for this bill. We find it not only absurd, but it conveys an extremist nature to begin with.
SUMMARY: PROPONENTS ARE MANUFACTURINGIt is the opinion of this writer, and many others, that the term animal, while not defined, is far too broad a category for snaring abuse by “claiming” location or ‘venue’ is what makes the abuse illegal–and that a different location would not make it illegal or criminal.
Although proponents claim that “abused” pets are being sold, proponents want us to believe that the person selling is automatically guilty of abuse because of nothing more than location. But if that person with the same animal was not in the named “locations” stated, then it would not be abuse. We believe it is quite obvious that proponents want to call many things abuse, and if they don’t actually HAVE abuse, they think of ways to manufacture it for innocent people. Pretending to fend off abuse is not done correctly by simply reversing the criteria.
If proponents want to target actual abuse, they should think of something more clever than this insane law which has simply expanded a rule that was defective from the start.
The actual intent of this entire proposed bill is specious, and lacks common sense. Furthermore, AS APPLIED, it is far too tenuous, at BEST, and it is probably not even legal because there is no actual state interest in either safety or health, because the provisions are not related to actual abuse, but only to the location of the legal conduct. If we keep passing laws drafted like this proposed bill, we will be guilty of robbery because we were inside a bank! Isn’t it true that one normally has to be IN A BANK to rob it? That is how absurd this law is.
==== > In other words, the animal itself could be perfectly fine, and NOT abused, but the owner or transferring person is labeled as an abuser, despite the animal NOT being abused. That is contradictory and inapposite, and serves absolutely no purpose but to punish innocent people with healthy animals. < ====
It comes down to the reality that Animal Rights want their subjective notions of what constitutes “abuse” to be applied to that which is legal conduct. Just because proponents CLAIM the law is well intended does not make it a well drafted provision. Had the actual conduct which is targeted (supposedly selling or buying) been an illegal act to start with, there would be no need for this bill.
But because the actual conduct is legal, proponents have had to work in reverse to make it appear that such conduct is illegal, and they are just there to stop it.
In fact, this proposed bill is just masquerading as an alleged “abuse” law, like many other proposed laws put forth by proponents. Reality shows us that it is only predicated on criminalizing legal conduct with no actual abuse, and eliminating prudent safety measures taken by both the public, owners, and others involved in moving, or transferring animals, showing animals, and the like. It doesn’t get more absurd than this.
This bill treads far too heavily on many elements of commerce in general, has an insufficient nexus causation-wise, and penalizes on its face and as applied, legal conduct. There are far less burdensome methods of targeting actual abuse, as one can see just by looking at the California Penal Code. Although abuse is a popular SUBJECT for proponents, it should not be manufactured where it does not already exist.
. The entire bill needs to be trashed. No exceptions.
QUqw~~_12.JPG)
