3 BIG AR LAWS VETO’ed BY GOV. ARNOLD Hurrah!

Join the Crusade v H$U$ Anti-Pet Laws!! And Pass it Forward!!

The Governor of CA has finally vetoed 3 of the worst ANIMAL RIGHTS BILLS  in the history of California !!!!!

HSUS and friends drafted them.

The rather pathetic CA legislature passed all 3 of these awful bills. Tons of opposition was noted to make the record, but the legislature ignored everyone and kept passing the bad laws.  We wonder how any attorneys could possibly believe that these laws were either legal, affordable, or even reasonable.  Petdefense goes over some of the flaws of all 3 of the laws below.

See example below, of how HSUS fails to disclose what the laws were REALLY saying, by leaving out the law and just pushing one sentence (which was not accurate at all; typical of HSUS)  See what PetPAC said: http://petpac.net/news/releases/the_governor_vetoes_bills/

Without READING the actual drafted law, it is impossible to understand how BAD the laws really are.  Most people do not read the bills drafted by AR groups.

307a_1

AB241, AB243, and AB1122 were all—Praise God—vetoed by Governor!!

AB1122 is in last paragraph, but has widespread precedent if  ever passed.  This bill as written must NEVER, NEVER— pass.  NOT in any form.  Not in any year.  To allow it to pass might as well signal the end of buying/selling animals, but few realize it.  That is the animal Rights method, to sneak such a law before the government, and then methodically use it to stop sales of animals.  If you cannot understand this, don’t be surprised. Even some attorneys were not aware, but definitely, AB1122 was one of the most UNconstitutional  in the group.

YET—look at what Whiney Wayne (AR HSUS) —- had to say about these 3 bills (in quotes)

Vetoed by the governor:

“AB241  (Limits number of intact animals a person can maintain.)”  Notice the fact that the law specifically included prosecuting even an attorney [that would help defend owner against the law]— that was punishable IN THE drafted LAW!!!!  This is NEVER mentioned.   Notice that nothing is mentioned about why 50 is *not* arbitrary— it is completely arbitrary !   Notice that nothing is mentioned about how much it costs, who would/could do it, and what unintended consequences might result?  CA is practically bankrupt, state workers have a mandatory 3 day loss of income EVERY MONTH.  Advocate groups must work against all of these proposed bills because HSUS+friends have the $$$ to keep up the charade for years with their deception.

“AB243 (Prohibits a person convicted of animal cruelty from owning an animal.)”   Notice it does not mention anything about the Court/Judge having the current ability to curtail animal ownership already.  Notice it does not mention that this would apply EVEN IF ONE WAS ACQUITTED.  Notice it does not mention that it applies even to search warrants—where there is not necessarily EVEN A CRIMINAL CHARGE MADE!!!

“AB1122 (Prohibits the roadside sale of live animals.)”  Notice Whiney did not mention that “selling” is outlawed for anyone who is not a “non” profit animal group.  Notice that it does not mention that rescue selling, individuals selling, and retail selling is ALL INTERSTATE COMMERCE

Notice how it blatantly IGNORES the fact that the SELLING is penalized by location, NOT by abusive conduct.  Which means if one was outside and legally placing homeless pets by a volunteer cat group at a Lexus sponsored dealtership, THAT would be illegal. 

Notice how it only says “roadside” when in fact, the drafted law eliminated all sales outside, all public land, all public grounds, easements, parking lots of any type, and far, far more (park, sidewalks, driveways, etc)  Notice it does not mention that the so called exemption for dog shows outlawed anything outside the show ring buildings. That every single state, federal and local animal law of THAT show jurisdiction must be perfectly adhered to (meaning every dog wears collars/tags and far more) which was not only unreasonable, it amounted to a defacto default of the exemption, if only one person was not in 100% compliance.  This is what HSUS does………they draft bad laws on purpose and hope no one notices just HOW BAD THEY REALLY ARE, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.

====================================================================  

The Truth About Bad Anti-Pet Laws:

AB243 was drafted to change the California Penal Code and would have done some substantial damage to our rights as owners.

243 attempted to say that forfeiture of all animals could take place even after ACQUITTAL, and placed 5 and 10 year “non” ownership or “non” contact with any animalsoutside of what the Judge had already done via sentencing.

Clearly this was an attempt to start the decimation and elimination of farms statewide, by seizing  farms after accusing owners of “abuse.”  Next year it is anticipated the bill will return with modifications, but still aimed at farms, even if that is not stated clearly in the bill.    H$U$ plans to use “abuse” laws, and forfeiture laws on any farmers that do not follow Prop 2, which was the H$U$ law passed re chickens and having room to spread their wings. This was simply a lead-in bill to start the process. [We have seen far too many HSUS laws do exactly that]

The truth is that HSUS is NOT about animals “having room” to move, but is instead, a method of making owning, raising, and producing/bringing products to MARKET— a nightmare. HSUS wants to/intends to try and do the regulating of such farm products down the line.  It doesn’t take rocket science to figure that out.

AB241 was drafted to state that intact breeding stock must be limited to the arbitrary number of 50 maximum,  with full knowledge that H$U$ intended to return to modify the number downward. 

 The arbitrary number chosen by H$U$+Friends for any kennels included the kennels that were used by professional handlers.  Kennels for guide dogs, service dogs, and any other type of therapy or other trained dogs, were not exempted. 

 Of course it is expected that H$U$ will come back with such exemptions next year.  It is also suspected that H$U$ will move to regulate “rescues” by forcing them to obtain permits and kennel licensing, which is cost prohibitive in CA due to permit fees [non refundable], septic systems, blueprints, HVAC concerns, engineering costs, and inspection ongoing fees.  Currently, limit laws make it difficult to use foster families as it is. Forcing permits and kennel licensing will undoubtedly send tons more animals to their deaths.

It is also believed H$U$ will attempt to try and pass state laws concerning how many kennels, and where such kennels can be located; how many animals can be kenneled, and even how many animals can be sold. Further, H$U$ may try to stop the sale of animals in any store or retail operation at all, as was started in South Lake Tahoe.

 HSUS may also claim that no out of state animals can be purchased for sale in the state, that all animals for sale must be “re-homed” animals, and that no animals sold shall be over price XX.XX……… None of those things are beyond the HSUS reach, since HSUS holds the pursestrings to an apparently unlimited amount of advertising dollar.

By regulating the animals that come into the state, and those that go out, by eliminating animals sold online (which all diehard animal rights want to stop)— this would be treading on interstate commerce on a widespread basis.  Petdefense is absolutely certain that interstate commerce is what HSUS is trying to stop, since buying/selling of animals constitutes interstate commerce.

AB1122 was purposely drafted to CRIMINALIZE, under the CA state Penal Code, the selling, displaying or offering  of an animal at an outside or public location, including any parking lot.  However, the law  penalized the selling by the LOCATION, NOT by any actual conduct OF animal abuse…. Therefore, legal conduct (selling) was make illegal (into animal “abuse”)  simply by saying that a group (which wasn’t a “non profit) was committing animal abuse by “offering, displaying” for sale, ANY animal, at an outside location…BUT if the seller was a “non” profit, THEN the seller was NOT guilty of “animal abuse.”  The clear problem is that the conduct TARGETED was SELLING, NOT actual abuse of any kind.  

  Only certain exemption were given, to non profits and limited other exempted groups.  However, the exemptions were specious and unreasonable, making them in practical terms, worthless

Had this bill passed Governor’s desk, the selling of animals would be criminalized in the law.   The next step by HSUS would have been to expand the NO “selling” to retail stores, online, non-kennels, non-owners, non “in possession” owners, and a host of other scenarios.

For example, if you did not have the licensing, the paperwork, the “sterilized” documents, the vet records, the pedigree, the training certificate——lack of all of those things could trigger a law which prohibited one from selling the dog, cat, bird, etc.  That is not farfetched at all.  HSUS makes up as many laws as they can, and will try anything if they think the legislature is stupid enough to pass it.

Apparently the CA legislature is not very bright.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s