Arizona seems to be one of the few states that does not tolerate AR drafted laws—- HSUS pretty much lost in court when they sued Hunte/Petland in AZ and now there is this case……..
More good news for pet store owners and pet retailers–Federal District Court (Arizona) has granted Puppies ‘N Love (pet store) a preliminary injunction on the pet sales ban which stated that only animals from shelters, or non profit humane society or rescue can be sold by pet stores, plus it prohibits pet stores from selling puppies purchased from any breeder. Violation of the Ordinance is a criminal offense.
Although different than the San Diego pet sales ban, which is similar– the San Diego ban is vague both in wording and its application, which leads to absurd results, since the non profits can sell any animal, even if obtained from the same sources [that the pet stores might use], whereas a pet store is not allowed to sell that same animal. We believe that the delineation of profit vs non profit is severely misplaced–as non profits are clearly in a commerce capacity whether they admit it or not. To force a business to ONLY sell Product X while the “non” profits MUST be the SOURCE of Product X is insane to us. Additionally, to violate this law creates either fines, potential seizure (probably called animal abuse) or other potential legal action in the criminal sense.
Non profits, according to case law, contribute billions to the USA economy by virtue of the networking and associations they create. And that’s just one facet. It should be noted that the Court stated “Because the loss of one’s business carries more than merely monetary consequences, it constitutes irreparable harm.” See am. Trucking Ass’ns v City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1059 (9th cir. 2009) At oral argument, the City claimed the Plaintiff would not be irreparably harmed because they could switch their business to shelter puppies, with HSUS making the same assertion. Plaintiffs provided evidence that Plaintiff could not COMPETE on a for-profit basis with subsidized shelters and humane societies that provide the same dogs for free or for minimal price. The Court found Plaintiff had shown a likelihood of irreparable harm.
It is a fact that the commerce clause is cropping up in con law cases nationally, especially after SCOTUS found that Obamacare violated the commerce clause by forcing people to BUY healthcare. And in the Prop 2 situation involving HSUS and their size of chicken cages, the same issue; commerce clause. We believe we will be seeing more of this in the future since the ARs are trying to claim everything is commercial, and then making laws to outlaw it.