CALIFORNIA BILL Law: SB 917 To BAN SWAP MEETS, FLEA MARKETS, ‘OUTDOOR’ PUBLIC “SALES”— Or is it FAR,FAR More Dangerous???
Folks, this is STILL the most dangerous bill law out there in CALIFORNIA right now. Please see the 3 specific examples below, labeled (a)(b)(c) —- which will clearly SHOW HOW legal acts will become “animal abuse..” Commercial sale is a very generalized term that can mean almost anything. Commercial can indicate business, it doesn’t have to be profit or non profit, or make a profit. The exchange of money or even giving away something could be categorized as commercial. ARs put this word in there for a reason!! And it’s not to help animals.
SB917 FLYER Please note–this post was done BEFORE the bill SB 917 passed…It is now a LAW for all of California.
Even if your group is”exempted” — “exemptions” will NEVER solve this awful law’s flaws, no matter what!!
* —–>>>>> Groups OPPOSING SB917 and/or AB1117 (which creates mandated 5/10 year “animal” abuse penalties):
Agricultural Council of California; Alliance of Western Milk Producers; ACLU; American Herd Breeding Association; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Judges association, California Grain and Feed Association; California Responsible Pet Owners Coalition; California Federation of Dog Clubs; International Cat Association, Inc.; Western United Dairymen; SAOVA; and others!
Previously Registered Opposition: American Rabbit Breeders Association! Cool! California Swap Meet Owners Association, Feline Friends Internationale, Northern California Samoyed Fanciers, Numerous individuals [Petpac and We the People USA, which they did not list]
This is from www.causes.com/causes/621991:
“However, the series of exemptions added through amendments for livestock sales, 4H and fairground events, dog and cat shows, etc. infers that the prohibitions could extend beyond roadside to any number of public
places and inside public buildings. This raises the question whether
even discussion of future sales at a public venue would be in
violation of the bill and if First Amendment rights are being
threatened. SB 917 is extremely intrusive on animal breeders and
exhibitors as well as the public. In an attempt to correct overbroad
language by adding limited exemptions, SB 917 now specifically targets
shows and exhibitions for small animals, reptiles, and other animal
species. Additionally, the extensive criminalization of public
transfers of pets in SB 917 may create conflicts with local ordinances
which are better suited to address community needs.”
THIS LAW AFFECTS ALL BUYERS, SELLERS,RE-HOMERS, OWNERS AND THOSE WHO SHOW, PROMOTE AND EXHIBIT.
The other AR bill that was amended (AB117) would affect owners with the change in liens, seizure, and forfeiture. If SB917 passes and everything becomes “animal abuse” because of “display” and “sell” then there would be a lot of people guilty of animal “abuse” and possibly subject to forfeiture!!
In particular, the misdemeanor convictions will mean NO animal can be in same place or house as defendant for 5 years, no visitors with animals, no caring for an animals, no nothing! IF a felony, then no animals for 10 years, not in house, nothing! Not outside, zero, zilch, nada! —->Note carefully—this takes away DISCRETION BY THE COURT AND MANDATES SET TERMS OF PUNISHMENT!! <——-
This bill is saying that display/ sales of animals are illegal, but that non profit animal groups selling/displaying animals is not illegal. This so-called “abuse” law re “sales” is focused basically on (a) location and (b) “exemptions”–NOT any actual abuse.
However, ”non profit” groups can sell animals……… The next step would then be to eliminate selling any animal that is not “rescued” by a non profit charitable group like HSUS claims to be. If you don’t smell a rat by now, you need to get with the program.
“Non profits” as defined in this law, are exempted and can sell without being accused of “abuse” even though this directly conflicts with PC597 which holds shelters/rescues to the same standard as anyone or any other group. It does not make any sense to EXEMPT rescues,shelters or humane groups from ABUSE.
Consider these examples:
(a) Susan Smith wants to find a new home for her miniature poodle, and her son’s schoolmate’s family wants to meet the dog in public at the Mc Donald’s (around people, cars, noise– trainer said meet at busy public place where lots of people are) to see if the dog seems appropriate and socialized before buying the dog. Susan and her son drive to Mc Donald’s on Saturday afternoon and get out of the car with the dog. GUILTY! of animal abuse!!
(b) John Jones and his daughter want to adopt out 2 kittens and placed an ad on Craigslist. The kittens have their shots and have been vetted. They are old enough to be adopted. They want to see/meet prospective buyers for the kittens but don’t want to have strangers meet them at their home, due to privacy and safety concerns—- however they feel comfortable to meet the owners at the park next to the SPCA, so they agree to drive and meet at noon in the parking lot at the park. They get out of their vehicle to view and meet the buyers/show the kittens…….. GUILTY!! of animal abuse!!
(c) Carrie the College student needs to re-home her sister’s: rabbit, turtle, lizard, snake, small mammal such as gerbil or guinea pig, chinchilla or others—– because her sister went into the Peace Corps. Carrie does not know that much about all of the critters but has cages, food, and pet books and the pet accessories and instructions that were saved and given to her. She met another girl at school that wants to buy the critters and thus become the new owner, but the girl wants to see them first, and meet Carrie. So Carrie drives over to the potential owner’s apartment, gets out of the car and is in the parking lot with several critters with her in her car. The other gal runs down the stairs to see the little critters outside… GUILTY!! of animal abuse!!
We are quite certain that there could be thousands of such fact patterns, and many more– and every single one would make one GUILTY OF ANIMAL ABUSE WHILE DOING A LEGAL ACT.
Further, while the “law” claims it “exempts” ONLY cat, dog or bird shows (no mention is made of reptiles or fish or rabbits or any other animal) – and MUST be:
(a) competitive (b) exhibited (c) judged
the proposed law also states:
(d) and “the show’s sponsor or permitee ensures compliance with all federal, state, and local animal welfare and animal control laws”— is it SAFE to say that IF such sponsor does NOT somehow “ensure” compliance with ALL laws– then the entire line of “exhibitors” has thus not met the assigned so-called “exemption” for the show????? GUILTY! of animal abuse!!!
Regardless, the same “compliance” is NOT required for those not at a pet show. There is a marked disparity in this law which clearly allows disparate treatment for “rescues and shelters” while holding “show exhibitors” to a completely different– and higher– standard, which is even prefaced upon compliance of every single state, local and federal animal welfare and animal control law– AND– that such sponsor must be liable for ENSURING such compliance.
And exactly how would this sponsor do this? The sponsor does not employ the exhibitors, and the sponsor is not in an agency relationship with them. Must the sponsor have each participant sign a waiver? Does the sponsor’s liability insurance not cover accidents due to a failure of the “non” ensuring of compliance? Or does each individual participant take the chance that they are covered when in fact they may be out of compliance and not even realize it? Guilty!! of animal abuse!!!
This disparate treatment is based upon the fact that animals can be SOLD anywhere by a non profit “rescue.” Apparently even in the street.
Some text of the law: “This bill provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to do either of the following: (1) sell or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk, (2) display or offer for sale, or display or offer to give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal, if the act of selling or giving away the live animal is to occur on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk”.. but “rescue” groups are exempted? WHY?
http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/text/292678
Yet look at this….MORE HSUS SHILLS………….
“Dr. Annie and Animal Wellness Centers Join HSUS and ASPCA in Support of California Animal Protection Laws“
Dr. Annie Lobbies Lawmakers in Sacramento
April 14th, 2011
SACRAMENTO – Dr. Annie Harvilicz (Dr. Annie) and Chantelle Moffatt-Blue, AWC Manager and adoption medical coordinator for Kitten Rescue, traveled to Sacramento today to meet with state legislators on behalf of Animal Wellness Centers to support several animal protection laws and issues. The effort was coordinated by AWC friends The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the ASPCA® (The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals®).
Dr. Annie, the firm’s Chief Medical Officer, stated: “On behalf of Animal Wellness Centers, I am urging the California legislature to support bills enacting bans on the shark fin trade and the roadside sale of animals, creating stronger penalties for animal fighting and requiring judges to limit the ability of convicted abusers to own animals.”
SERIOUSLY—THESE PEOPLE FAILED TO READ THE LAW AND LIKELY HAVE NO IDEA AS TO THE ACTUAL MEANING OF IT!!
THE LEGAL PRECEDENT SET BY THIS BILL WOULD BE HORRIFIC……………….Caution: Just take a look at the sponsors (from 2009) and you will know the answer………….. why not just call this Baffle us with Bullshit or Bamboozle us with Baloney, because the reality is, this is just a thinly veiled piece of ludicrous legislation that isn’t worth the piece of paper it was printed on.
The proposed law goes on and on about other things such as why they need to amp up certain criminal provisions but the DANGER is that the wording for the provisions for SALES— encompasses public right of way, which would include public land [in our opinion] and parking lots, with no exceptions.
That means parks, the sidewalk next to your house, the DOG PARK, the parking lot of the POUND, the picnic area next to the bike trail, the frisbee zone next to the kids’ playground, the parking lot at the local Trader Joes, Starbucks, Dennys, or Mc donalds, Petco, the local animal boarding kennel, the doggie salon, the dog groomer business—- the aquarium store location, the exhibiting location for a local bird exhibit or reptile learning exchange, ANY location where there is a parking lot of any type, including apartments—the wording does not LIMIT it.
Let’s face it, your vehicle WILL likely BE in a parking lot!!!
Therefore if I re-home my kitty cat to Joe Bob and agree he can meet and view this cat at the local petstore in public (so we don’t worry about anyone coming inside our house, knowing exactly where we live, viewing our home/possessions, etc) we THEN can see the person’s vehicle, how they take care of the vehicle, whether it is registered, what their car license is, and if they even can produce a valid driver’s license!!
=================================================
This bill makes it a criminal act—- “animal abuse”—under the CA Penal Code— to transfer a dog from car A to car B in any parking lot in the entire state. AND it’s not limited to DOGS. BUT it does EXEMPT displays/ sales by non profit rescues??
=================================================
In fact a Petco employee accosted one of our team members outside just for showing someone the chicken in the crate– and the LAW had not even been passed– but had been vetoed by governor last year!
This bill makes meeting a new owner 50% of the way to pick up the animal, animal abuse. But not for alleged 501(c)(3) non profit sales by “rescues.”
Generally speaking, rescues or any animal welfare person selling or picking up or delivering animals are not necessarily exempted from any commercial transaction according to any cited cases on this topic as far as alleged “abuse” is concerned. Unless they are already governed by another local municipal regulation or a Federal reg under APHIS for example, many non profits tend to get away with actions by claiming non profit status. The fact that H$U$ gets away with it is an obvious example.
Further, HSUS has defined, in various legislation, ”rescue” as a for profit, or not for profit individual or group whose focus is on rehoming animals from pounds or other places. Yet in this law, the only exempted groups are non profit rescues/shelters, etc…Animal rescues use contracts, and must file documents showing how much income, expenses, and profit was made. Lack of a profit does not exclude any [rescue] group from being in a commercial business. The HSUS is a commercial business despite having a non profit status.
====> Folks, why isn’t everyone mad at this bill?
We think it’s because the average person and ”PIJAC” thinks it only APPLIES to selling an animal on the side of the road? <====
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE PROPOSED LAW SAYS…………. The “sales” provision is likely illegal as written, it is purposely designed to work in conjunction (dovetail) with the other Animal Rights bills, and it is purposely intended to snare owners, breeders, or just re-homers of any animal—with ANIMAL ABUSE— SIMPLY FOR DOING A LEGAL ACT. This provision was purposely placed in with other language dealing with animal abuse, which focuses on language dealing with cock fighting or dog fighting.
In general, a law should not punish a legal act unless there is a compelling state interest for it. [For example, it's legal to drink alcohol, but not legal to drink it over a certain BAC limit while driving; same for texting/driving, etc]
The AR drafters of this bill fully drafted it to STOP sales,transfers and showing of animals. It was drafted with an overbroad scope on purpose. The state does not have a compelling state interest in alleged “safety or welfare” which justifies the law AS WRITTEN— when in fact the law would punish people criminally for simply moving an animal. It is so absurd it is pathetic.
Not unlike the U.S. v Stevens case, where HSUS purposely drafted the wide net theory to stop “depictions” of abuse of animals, Judges found that it was overbroad, and punished or could punish for example, any movie showing an animal being injured (even if fake).
That is one reason why we talk about U.S. v Stevens, the United States Supreme Court case [ interstate sale of historical dog fighting video documentary in Japan,etc] which struck down the HSUS drafted statute. There is a similar use of an “overbroad” law here, essentially because the proposed law punishes behavior far outside the intent of its original stated purpose (crush videos in Stevens, and alleged “unsafe display”/sales of animals in this proposed law.)
Sponsors: All are animal Rights..H$U$ [drafted the law] SHAC (State Humane Assn CA– actually H$U$ in disguise)…. ASPCA Animal Place Born Free USA United with API Food Empowerment , League of Humane Voters, OC People for animals, the paw project, Peta, San diego Animal Advocates, United animal nations is or was headed up byJennifer Fearing of HSUS– UAN name changed recently to “Red Rover” which is something like the red mobile spay/neuter RV in TN, we know because the vet we know who built it, told us about it and you can see it online.
Here is example of a letter opposing the law done by the Animal council http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/files/TAC_Letter_SB_917_Lieu
_ASM_Pub_Safety_6_15_11_-_Pub_Safety_CONSULTANT.pdf
Question: Are Pet Exhibits, chicken or bird exhibits (not necessarily judged) dog and cat expos, pet parades and sales, outdoor pet shows, demonstrations, exhibits, vendors selling at dog shows in commercial parking lots, dogs in X pens in same, owners showing dogs in rings on commercial property, or state owned property, OR— individuals trying to re-home and place pets due to life circumstances—subject to this horribly drafted law?
CAN ANY OR ALL of these situations be snared into this horribly drafted Bill? Could they all be guilty???? YEP. Removing flea market or swap meet is not the issue. The words commercial transaction, even under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code, Sale of Goods Art. II) usually means a contract or agreement for a sale or transfer of goods. Goods are tangible property, and an animal is tangible property. Agreeing to sell something or agreeing to trade or transfer for something in exchange [including a promise to perform] it still pretty much amounts to some type of transaction, and you can be sure that ARs will want to categorize it against the buyer, seller, owner or what have you.
Since the word ‘commercial’ could imply a business-business or business-buyer, or seller-buyer, or owner-customer, it’s possible to categorize a LOT of scenarios into that “commercial” category. For the record, ALL non profits are ALLOWED TO MAKE A PROFIT. They may not pay taxes ON the profit, but like H$U$, there are probably many that get away with murder by NOT paying taxes.
Once a law is passed, if questioned, they often look to the intent of the legislature. Surely the intent of the legislature is NOT to end the sales of pets or animals? Or is it? Most clearly– this law heavily affects the ability to rehome animals by those who are not “rescues” and thus the disparate treatment of the law adversely affects the animals that may NEED homes.
This bill practically qualifies as criminal against animal owners to us—since the penalty is “animal abuse” which can trigger other provisions in the law, where the penalty could be mandated sterilization, or forfeiture, fines, or a combination.
Below is the brief opposition to the bill by the Dept. of Finance last year, where it noted that “it may result in unintended prohibitions of certain animal sales.” That’s putting it extremely mildly and barely begins to touch the surface of this flawed proposed law.
It wouldn’t be an “UNintended” prohibition, it would definitely be an INtended prohibition by animal rights! It also noted that avian influenza might create undue expense re surveillance of domestic poultry, and that “underground” market sales of same might go undetected and create more expense for the state.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/legislative_analyses/LIS_PDF/09/AB-1122-20090722052303PM-AB01122.pdf
Pet Defense believes that IF this law carves out “exceptions” for pet shows, it will only later be modified to cut such “exemptions” out, and we (not PIJAC) do NOT recommend acceptance of such “exemptions.” We can see it now, oh “we only exempted shows with 900 dogs” or “we only exempted shows that give money to animal shelters” or “we only exempted shows that bring in X dollars to the city” etc……….. they will definitely manage to screw over fanciers. Mark our word—it’s more than obvious.
————— WARNING——WARNING———WARNING——————–WARNING—WARNING—–
There is NO WAY that this Bill was drafted to “accidentally snare” pet shows, or any pet sales. It was already admitted at a conference with the sponsoring people, that it was purposely done to stifle animals being sold. Period. You don’t neeed to be a Lobbyist, Legislator, Attorney, or even a Pet Advocate to figure it out.
Let’s face it folks–HSUS-Peta-ASPCA etc doesn’t want any of this:
1. No pets sold in pet stores
2. No pets sold by commercial breeders 3. No pets sold by someone who got it from a commercial breeder
4. No pets sold by someone who obtained the dog outside their own state 5. NO pets sold “outside” in a public place except if you are the non profit shelter and rescue? [Don't forget,rescues/ shelters re-sell commercial kennel dogs]
6. No pets sold by “backyard” breeders 7. No pets sold by people from their own house, even with Federal licensing, instead, they MUST also get STATE licensing and be subject to search/seizure
8. If one is allowed to sell from their house where they keep a dog or cat *inside* then they allow their entire house to be the subject of search and seizure because that’s the HSUS law
9. No pets should be sold “online” or in newspaper ads [even though shelters/rescues and individuals can do it]
10. No pets should be purchased because it amounts to abuse, period.
After reading the list above, if you cannot figure out that HSUS+Friends don’t want any breeding or pet sales, then you must be on glue.
Purpose of the bill . According to the author’s office, “There
is a growing concern with the sale of pets along streets and at flea markets, swap meets, and other outdoor venues. Numerous local governments have enacted ordinances addressing this issue - Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Jose Counties all currently restrict the sale of animals at flea markets, swap meets, and roadsides. They may be “restricted” but not necessarily prohibited. In fact swap meets were later “exempted” in SB 917.
Opposition . The California Swap Meet Owners Association writes
in opposition, “The Swap Meet Owners have continually argued to
be treated as other retail entities would, to create a set of
standards that we are given the opportunity to meet in order to
sell certain items, rather than a blanket prohibition of selling
an item.”
The Northern California Samoyed Fanciers and numerous individuals in opposition have objected to the language of AB1122 (09-2010) that makes it unlawful to display or offer for sale live animals on streets and other specified outdoor venues stating,
“This is clearly a restraint of trade. The offer or display
could include notices being posted in grocery stores or on any
place where offers for sale or free to a good home may be
placed?. Display could mean anything from placing the animal’s
picture someplace in public or placing the animal in a favorable
pose while people are watching.
REGISTERED SUPPORT : (Almost ALL AR groups)
California Animal Association (sponsor)
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(ASPCA)
Animal Place
Born Free USA
East Bay Animal Advocates
House Rabbit Society
The Humane Society
League of Humane Voters
Orange County People for Animals
Parrots First
Paw Pac
Once people start "collaborating" with HSUS, you can rest aassured you will LOSE. LOSE. LOSE.
