We got our Xmas present this year. We finally found someone online that realizes So Cal cities are improperly forcing us to buy ONLY a rehomed animal, IF we can even get one?
The blog says Burbank. so thank you Burbank blog!
That cat with the machine gun is hilarious!
Apparently because CA cases have allowed ARs to get away with murder (in a sense), we thought we should again bring up the fact that all of the pet trade, animal trade, breeding, selling, buying, giving away (by owners), selling rehomed animals, selling new puppies, buying new puppies, buying stuff in a pet store, selling stuff in a pet store, selling stuff online, buying stuff online, advertising stuff online, breeding animals, breeding livestock, ANY/ALL of these component contribute to interstate or intrastate commerce. If such transactions never cross state lines, then it’s intrastate commerce.
But this real problem is that no one cares. Especially ARs. However, the day is coming– and probably not that far in the future now– when the ARs are going to be facing this spectre– when the lid is blown off of their obvious extremist hidden agenda, to take out the pet trade step by step.
First they eliminate breeders. Then they eliminate sellers. Then they tighten the noose to eliminate the ability to obtain an animal EXCEPT by “adoption” “rehoming” and “rescue.” Part of that plan was SB917 which CRIMINALLY PROHIBITS anyone BUT a non profit, from transferring, selling, giving away, rehoming an animal outside in public. We don’t care how the law is worded– a non profit giving away an animal outside means it is legal. A person which is NOT a non profit doing it is ILLEGAL, and it is considered to be ANIMAL ABUSE, the law is codified generally under PC 597 et seq (there are tons of subsections.)
By forcing the people which sell pets to NOT be able to sell pets which may come from a “commercial kennel” [which can have different meanings, but we will go with the USDA commercial kennel regs]– people have to realize that the USDA regs are Federal. It does not matter that ARs want to call EVERY commercial kennel a PM. There is NO legal definition for PM, PM is an AR term used to describe kennels that raise dogs in larger numbers, NO MATTER HOW GOOD. It has nothing to do with the care, since ARs have labeled ANY commercial kennel as ANIMAL ABUSE.
People, there are no constitutional rights for animals. There is no constitutional right for animals built into the Constitution. This was emphatically proven in Peta’s lawsuit claiming whales have constitutional rights. ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
HOWEVER, people have rights to run businesses, even if it includes running a USDA commercial kennel. Even if the products (puppies or whatever they have) are sold only in one state or 40 states. The ARs cannot simply close down the source for people who want to sell commercially bred animals. But that is exactly what they are doing. Now mind you, we don’t say this without any thought.
In constitutional law, we have the case GONZALES v. RAICH.
The question to the United States Supreme Court was, does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress’ power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?
Before hitting the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the CSA unconstitutional as it applied to intrastate medical marijuana use. Relying on two Supreme Ct. cases, U.S. v Lopez (1995) and U.S. v Morrison (2000)– the Ninth Circuit ruled that using medical marijuana did NOT “substantially affect” interstate commerce and therefore could NOT be regulated by Congress. Although we realize that selling animals is distinctly not the same action as cultivation and possession of MJ for medical use—there is a problem here.
The Ninth Circuit said using medical MJ didn’t affect interstate commerce substantially. Most people would agree with that.
If so, then we might gander a guess, that Congress would not be regulating that action. YET the Supreme Court later held, that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of MJ, DESPITE state law to the contrary. Justice Stevens argued that the Court’s precedent “firmly established” Congress’ commerce clause power to REGULATE PURELY LOCAL ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PART OF A CLASS OF ACTIVITIES WITH A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
The majority argued that Congress could BAN local MJ use because it was PART of such a class of activities– being the national marijuana market. The local use affected supply and demand in the national MJ market, making the regulation of intrastate use “essential” to regulating the MJ’s national market. The ARs would try to claim that suppressing the commercial kennel USDA animals was just a local intrastate restraint which doesn’t affect commerce. They would claim that it was a health, welfare and safety issue (because they have nothing else to claim)…. However, we see the problem as much deeper than that. By purposely passing AB917, prohibiting normal people from giving animals away, selling, or trading outside, but making it legal only if one is a non profit, and THEN claiming a pet store cannot sell USDA commercial bred animals— we are seeing the suppression of trade locally, and within the state entirely. If each state was to do the same thing, essentially it comes down to the Wickard v Filburn case, of one guy keeping extra wheat for his family, which in and of itself was small, but in the aggregate, could amount to much more.
As shown on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution‘s Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government.
Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.
To best of our knowledge, this is still good case law. The fact that the USDA kennel dogs or animals would or might come from out of state clearly indicates some interstate trade. To force a seller to ONLY sell animals from the city or state they are in, is NOT legal. Do we really think that we can FORCE people to only SELL or BUY certain items? To only OWN certain items? To restrain someone from selling their own property and make it criminal, but it’s legal for a non profit to do the same thing? and then calling it animal abuse?
The HSUS spawned movement needs to be taken down. HSUS and Best Friends are the #1 culprits in claiming to save shelter animals. Hogwash. HSUS advocates for killing shelter animals and altering everything alive. Best Friends hoards animals (mostly dogs) and they keep 1,500 or so of them as yard ornaments. They never get sold. They never get homes. That to us, is hoarding. Best Friends works with HSUS and ASPCA and sells seized puppies. They then work in tandem to make everyone in America BELIEVE that because they can FIND an errant breeder, that every breeder in America is just like the one they found. Hogwash. Nonsense. Propaganda Train bullshit. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. People just buy into AR crap like it was some wonderful candy. In fact, what it is, is simply brainwashing and the public is too dumbed down to realize it.
Just a note; if a lawsuit was commenced in Federal Court (which requires standing) it should preferably not be done in the jurisdiction of Central District (Los Angeles) because it would likely fail. It would preferably be in Eastern District just north of the Central District. Los Angeles judges are notorious for taking the AR side, with exception of the Peta whale case. It is possible that Southern District (San Diego) might be possible since they ruled against Peta.