Display~Sell~Give Away Animal NOW Equals “Animal ABUSE”

Join the Crusade Against HSUS Anti-Pet, Anti-Animal Laws/Pass it Forward!!  

UPDATED  2013— Southern CA cities are banning sales by a commercial entity of dogs/cats etc that do NOT come from shelters, rescues, non profits.

Any retail or commercial entity with animals

[cat, dog, rabbit]

for sale

MUST come from……


This is illegal and is being pushed heavily by AR San Diego group trying to force sales of ONLY, repeat— O-N-L-Y   “rescued rehomed” pets.

They claim they are stopping sales for commercial bred animals.  They are right, they are forcing customers to have a choice of shelter or rescue animals, period.

and……………..did you know about the new CA “abuse” law

which makes the normal person who wants to

rehome their pet into an “abuser?”

Oh yes, it all stems from the Animal Rightists….


           CREATING “Animal Abuse” Out of                                            

                            Legal Conduct

AB1122 Split Crime

“Sale”- Display- Offering- of Live Animals Called Criminal “ANIMAL ABUSE“— But Not if Done by Humane Society?

Here is exactly what we mean when we say HSUS+Friends write “anti-pet laws” —>>>> this 2010 law has come back in 2011 with the same bullshit…….. under the California Penal Code

Law started Jan 2012!

GUILTY IF YOU REHOME YOUR OWN DOG?  GUILTY OF ANIMAL ABUSE BECAUSE HSUS, PETA, AND THE REST SAY YOU ARE?   This is an example of HSUS type laws, drafted to deceive those who don’t read carefully. The bottom line is that selling or displaying to transfer an animal….. MAKES YOU A CRIMINAL. Penal code 597.4 to be specific.

An actual abused animal could be shown by a humane society, and this law would not apply. A NON abused animal could be shown by NON rescue,  non-humane society, and this law WOULD APPLY, and one would be criminally charged under the Penal Code for “ANIMAL ABUSE.”

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 was 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, such groups are often composed of

 PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, Born Free,

United Animal Nations and others, 

which are all Animal Rights groups in existence.

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? Each animal transferred is a SEPARATE count!!

This bill tries to criminalize rehoming animals, selling animals, or even transferring them to a group, another person, or a new kennel.

It  limits 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.

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.

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.

=== > 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. < ====

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.

4 thoughts on “Display~Sell~Give Away Animal NOW Equals “Animal ABUSE”

  1. Actually, removing the word “commercial” EXPANDED the scope of AB1122 — without that word, it now includes private parking areas, such as your own driveway, and perhaps even the interior of your private garage.

  2. This bill was overwhelmingly passed on 9/8 and is now shown as “enrolled”. BUT NOT YET SIGNED BY THE GOV> CONTACT HIM IMMEDIATELY TO VETO IT. Send this not only to pet people but horse and ag people and farm bureau. Any horse/sheep/cow etc show or sale,agricultural fair, rodeo etc that is held on a PUBLIC fairground, rodeo ground, ag center with public right of ways and parking lots will fall under this law. 4H project animals are sold AND displayed at county (PUBLIC grounds) fairs. This will trigger this law which will trigger the forfeiture laws which will trigger the provisions banning these folks from EVER owning animals again. Clever, Clever. Nasty. CALL TODAY AND ASK THE GOV TO VETO. Call the farm bureau and ask them why their members are not up in arms and calling the gov.

  3. Removing the word commercial as to a parking lot could possibly imply that your driveway is a parking area, or anywhere anyone parks a car. But the use of commercial as a term in general for the law, is basically used to delineate SELLING as illegal, but SELLING BY RESCUES AND SHELTERS, ETC as NOT illegal. Not only is that inconsistent, absurd and insane, it is not constitutional and there is absolutely no basis for such insane discrimination, and there is no compelling state interest to stop a sale and not stop a rescue sale.

  4. I think there is an exemption made for 4H and certain farm groups last we saw. But it would not surprise us if other farm groups which were NOT specifically exempted (bad word that exempted, when used by ARs)—could be in trouble. For example, if a class sponsored, non 501(c)(3) and their teacher got a Lexus dealership to let them use 200 sq. feet of the parking lot to SELL rehomed animals, they would be guilty. But if they were the 501(3)(3), they would NOT be guilty. Obviously H$U$ only wants 501(c)(3) groups to SELL anything, including animals. They don’t want puppies sold by owners,breeders, or anyone else, that is why on Craigslist, the Peta freaks run the Pet Section, flagging off nearly every small dog, puppy, or even rehomed dogs/cats of no value. By no value I mean owner is giving it away. They don’t want them GIVEN away OR sold, that is obvious.
    The number one reason that this law is illegal is because the commercial word is used to designate what is illegal [alleged to be “selling”] while claiming that the rescue/shelter/humane society selling of animals is LEGAL— because they are “exempted” in the law.

    Notice that there is no explanation of why selling is illegal but selling by a rescue is not illegal. It is ALL interstate commerce, if we have to say it a MILLION times, that is why it is not legal to define selling as illegal but not illegal if a rescue or shelter. It does not work that way in the law and H$U$ KNOWS it does not work that way. so why doesn’t the CA legislature understand it? They do understand it, but to put it bluntly—they DO NOT CARE ABOUT PET OWNERS!!! If they did, they would never pass such an asinine and illegal bill like this piece of garbage. It just goes to show how bad politics really is.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s