Another attorney has now issued a handout re SB 917, this one talking about the effects of SB917 and rabbit breeders. We are grateful for Santana’s explanation, but we can see from reading his explanation of why people need not worry about rabid ARs, because “an unsubstantiated allegation from an animal rights activist does not fall within the category of exigent or emergency situation”, we beg to very much differ.
[He cites People v Riazati 195 Cal. App.4th 514, which basically goes over how jury instructions chosen for proof affects the case. In essence, that case stated there is no standard jury instruction on elements of PC597(b) violation (animal abuse) but do require a finding of criminal negligence (often called gross or reckless.) ]
Now anyone who makes that statement, ‘not to worry about rabid ARs’ — is either completely uninitiated as to the tactics of ARs, H$U$ or wack jobs in general, OR, this guy is friends with the other legislators in So Cal, that support HSUS heavily. Let’s talk about why we say that?
First— from a legal standpoint only— ‘Exigent’ circumstances usually do not require a warrant. Not even if it’s about seizing an animal. There is CA case law on that from Los angeles. However what is ‘exigent’ can be misrepresented, and we have seen it done. YES many unsubstantiated cases occur thanks to rabid ARs, AND they seize animals all the time. Just ask HSUS and its many helpers who raid kennels, owners and homes. HSUS brags they do over 5,000 raids per YEAR.
Second– from an AR standpoint– ARs believe everything is “abuse” or something akin to abuse. It does not matter what it is because for ARs, their lifestyle belief is that owning, buying, selling, trading and any commercial use of any animal is a moral sin. Does Santana realize that? Nope. Therefore an AR sponsored law re “abuse” which exculpates “non profits” is insane since it is clearly NOT based upon abuse.
Third– from a legislative standpoint– Yes, the intent of any law via statutory construction must definitely consider the intent behind the law. And yes, when a legal challenge is mounted the intent of the law must be used to see if it meets muster with the way the law affects people. However things such as being overbroad in scope, or not tailored, or not having the strong legitimate state interest to have the unintended effects has to be considered. In CA they don’t consider these things and just pass the law unless Governor vetoes it. That is politics in action, and it sucks. Because HSUS is all about politics and money and lobbying.
Fourth– from an ANIMAL OWNER’S viewpoint— Animal owners are often complacent and they don’t know any laws at all that pertain to animals. BUT sometimes if they find out, they might get mad if they really understood the problem. The PROBLEM is that SB917 is like a huge Trojan Horse, loaded with viruses. SB917 carries HUGE problematic issues, precedent wise, because it terms SELLING AS ABUSE WHEN THERE IS NO ABUSE. We noticed they have now categorized (in the code) the PC597.4 under “malicious mischief” even though if charged as a misdemeanor, could mean the end to you owning animals, period. Oh sure, the crime is a misdemeanor if they charge you on the second time– so does that mean it’s ok to set up a law that makes selling legal only because you are a non profit? The word non profit has nothing to do with abuse.
Well, it might if you consider what H$U$ does for a living.
Fifth–from Reality viewpoint— In this instance, Santana maintains that as long as sales are conducted “at the show” inside, they need not worry. WELL what if a 4H group and breeders were OUTSIDE at a public place on grass area and had various farm species to display? So the breeders get nailed if they ‘display their animals’ for sale, but the 4H don’t get nailed because they are exempt, right? Does this make sense to anyone? We hope not.