The answer to the question apparently is YES……
(click on above link for legal theory of why certain laws may not be legit, like City of San Diego pet law, which seemed wildly illegal……..)
[click on above link to read the EXPOSE–well known already to us–BUT–
this time, it tells exactly how many MILLIONS are spent
by “NON PROFITS AND RESCUES” in
BUYING AND SELLING COMMERCIAL KENNEL DOGS
THAT THEY CLAIM SHOULD BE OUTLAWED,
AND CAN’T BE SOLD IN ANY STORES?????
BUT THEY CLAIM, ONLY THEY CAN SELL SUCH DOGS TO THE PUBLIC?
WHO IS FOOLING WHO HERE? We don’t care how much they spent to buy dogs that they don’t want sold. They are buying/selling the exact dogs, and have been doing so for years. BUT they claim you should never buy such a dog. What’s the difference if YOU buy it or they sell it to you??? They aren’t GIVING YOU THE DOG–YOU HAVE TO BUY IT.
RE: THE COMMERCIAL KENNEL-SHELTER-RESCUE GRID AT THE TOP OF POST:
As stated on our pages at the top of the site [which is the same link above]— we believe that this scenario cooked up by City of San Diego against pet stores selling anything, indicates the distinct possibility that such ordinance was illegal as implemented. It could have been modified, but unlikely. and now, in 2019, NO PET STORES CAN SELL ANIMALS WHICH DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE ANTI PET LAW JUST PASSED IN 2017-18.
AND if any pet stores which are not focused on “rescued” animals tries to stay open, the activists simply target them every weekend until they shut down.
If this scenario as indicated on the grid above, is somewhat correct, then it is not legal to engage in a purposely devised structure to pretty much run all of the market in sales of animals. Especially when sourcing, regulating, selling and turning people in, are all done by the same people? The non profits, government and AR groups??
Any input by attorneys who deal with this type of conduct is welcome. We somehow doubt that attorneys have bothered to ever look at such laws but we have it on good authority that the City Attorney himself indicated he had doubts about its legality. We seriously doubt any attorneys will have input but if so, please let us know.
Our understanding by viewing what some con law attorneys have stated on the complete outlawing of the sales of animals, where ONLY the sponsors of the law get to choose WHICH type of animals can be sold— is highly questionable. It’s quite obvious that the treatment of whatever the item is being sold– is the criteria being used for such laws, even if they don’t know WHAT is being done?
For that matter, if slave labor was used to grow crops, and your labor force was expensive labor- could you then outlaw the sales of the slave labor crops, [sourcing] while your expensive labor crops would take the entire market–because (a) you made the law (b) you regulate the law (c) you decide what types of crops are “good enough” (d) your expensive crops will basically be sold in every store, whereas (e) the slave labor crops cannot be sold in any store unless the slave labor was replaced by the expensive labor? If this sounds pretty incredulous, it’s because it’s basically not exactly wrong. So if most of this would make an example of what has happened in the USA, it pretty much means that SOME PEOPLE who make these “laws” are simply loading their PREFERENCES of treatment, or care, or behavior, onto EVERYONE, and then claiming it has a rational basis.
There is very little that cannot be rationalized away.
HOWEVER–that in and of itself in this type of element is NOT limited to health,safety and welfare. In fact, it’s not limited to that because each owner of each animal is entitled to raise or train his or her animal, and NOT because some AR wants it done some specific way.
In case you have not noticed, despite us talking about it for 10 years–the AR movement was in part fueled by the expensive, over the top type of criteria used by high end breeders. Elitist breeders. Nothing is too good for their animals.
AR owners pretty much treat their animals as if they were $10,000 dogs that needed $10,000 of great/high toys, treats,food, and human “companionship.” JUST BECAUSE AR owners WANT their animals to be replacing humans or kids, does not mean everyone else in the USA wishes to do that.
Nor should they have to do that, nor should they be forced into buying animals that are substandard, but held out to be the greatest thing there is, just because AR laws say “they are.” In meantime, rescues and non profits are simply scamming people to believe that a rescued animal is actually better than non rescued. “Humane” groups SEIZE/STEAL people’s animals illegally all the time. HOW? By having AR people draft law against owners
At best, that’s an opinion…. doesn’t come close to being factually based at all. If this was all true, then we could say that no one should or could sell any items made in China or some foreign country because it was pieced together by slave labor. For that matter, in the USA we only enjoy the luxury of buying things cheaply——- BECAUSE of the slave labor????