Just recieved this, haven´t had the time t read it but I figure it is some important [bleep]. :P

oby



There seems to be some confusion about the status of AB 1122 - Permission to Cross Post

 

As per the author (Ted Leiu - Dem, Torrance) during Appropriations Hearing on

this past Weds., Leiu would make amendments on CONTENT and then re-submit bill

next week during the Weds. Appropriations meeting.

 

I just spoke with his office to verify that what I heard IN PERSON during the

hearing is true, and that was verfied, "they are working on amendments and will submit bill again next week"so we have our work cut out for us still on

this CATCH ALL bill by the Animal Rights organization API & Born Free USA & California Animal Association (a shell organization), all of which are backed by HSUS. They continually claim in testimony at the hearings of over a million CALIFORNIA MEMBERS... I don't know ANYONE who knows them or is a member....

 

As CAA's "constitutionally deficient supposed legal" counsel stated:

 

The intent of the bill is to ban LIVE ANIMAL SALES.

 

Let's not sit back folks! Hammer the Author's office! Leiu is running for CA Attorney General.

One would think an attorney running for Attorney General would KNOW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! Call and him & let him know if you would vote for him for Atty. General!

(916) 319-2053 and especially his District office: (310) 615-3515 (El Segundo, CA)

 

 

Here again is our analysis: Remember, our intent is NOT TO COMPROMISE but to show how STUPID and MALICIOUS this bill really is, written intentionally to STOP THE SALE OF LIVE ANIMALS. Period.

 

April 23, 2009

Assemblymember Ted Lieu In Re: OPPOSE AB 1122

Capitol Office

Sacramento, CA

Dear Ms. Meyers:

First, let me thank you for your kindness for providing the

opportunity to address our concerns over the issues that AB 1122

presents. We are indeed heartened that you are an animal lover.

Whether a two-legged or four-legged "constituent", one can expect

compassion from you!



As I previously stated, our goal is to implement no-kill policy

statewide. We firmly believe that punitive laws such as AB 1122,

though fraught with benevolent intentions, will result in the

opposite of protecting animals. It will cause not only suffering

by humans, but likewise for the animals that would be supposedly

protected. These animals would instead be brought into shelters

where the likelihood of death by contagious disease would only be

surpassed by the reality of shelter euthanasia. In other words,

if you are a puppy, kitten or any animal, the least safe place to

be is a shelter.



We understand Assembly member Lieu's concern for puppies sold

haphazardly on street corners, but this is more of a local

phenomena in some areas in Southern California and is rarely seen

in Northern California where no-kill policy is prevalent.

The vague and undefined terms in AB 1122 serve to only breed fear

that many longtime traditions and hobbies will fall prey to

misinterpretation. These include but are not limited to:

transport and transfer of rescued animals by volunteer good

Samaritans, animal shows and exhibitions such as dog shows,

equestrian trials, cat shows, reptile exhibitions, agility

events, herding and hunting trials. It is often a common practice

that animals be transferred, sold or placed at such events. AB

1122 could make simply the act of participation in such events a

criminal act.



As written AB 1122 will cause more problems than it solves -

  SECTION 1. Section 597.4 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

  597.4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully

  sell, trade, barter, display, or offer for sale, trade, or

  barter, or give away as part of a commercial transaction a live

  animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, commercial

  parking lot, or at any outdoor special sale, swap meet, flea

  market, parking lot sale, carnival, or boardwalk.



Under California law a dog show with supply vendors is considered

a "swap meet" and this would put all dog show exhibitors at risk

of breaking the law. This could have a negative impact in the

millions of dollars on the California budget as exhibitors from

other States will not want to take the risk of being charged

under the Penal code and/or having their dogs impounded. The

famous and highly successful Eukanuba Dog Show, once a $65

million dollar windfall for Long Beach, has now been moved to

Florida due to concerns with punitive laws in California that

could jeopardize the exhibited dogs. Should this bill pass in its

current form, thousands of other animal shows, expos,

exhibitions, and trials will be forced to follow suit. The

resulting economic impact on California would have been

avoidable, especially during this recession.



Just the mere inclusion of the word "display" can certainly be

interpreted to include exhibition events such as dog shows. Is

the intent of this bill to make criminals of those exhibitors who

display their animals? Is it the intent of this bill to include

exhibitors that display their animals that are for sale at these

events which in many cases is a longtime tradition? Kittens,

rabbits, birds and reptiles are often offered for sale at these

shows.



  "It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully display a

  live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way,

  commercial parking lot, or."



This phrase as written means no:

  * walking the animal (a sidewalk is a public right-of-way)

  * driving the animal (seen in the car window is a display on a

    street, highway, or public right-of-way)

  * taking the animal to the vet or Petco (display in commercial

    parking lot)



It means animals shall be housebound and can't even be taken to

the vet or exercised by walking.

The Committee Analysis does recommend removing the comma after

"display" and adding one after "transaction", but that's

insufficient. The words "trade, barter," were stuck from the bill

between the words "sell," and "display,". They struck the wrong

words:



Better wording:



Replace "display," with "barter, trade,"

Strike the "or" before "offer for sale"



Add a comma after "transaction"

  "It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully sell,

  barter, trade, offer for sale or give away as part of a

  commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway,

  public right-of-way, commercial parking lot, or at any outdoor

  special sale, swap meet, flea market, parking lot sale,

  carnival, or boardwalk."



That gets an animal being seen in public as no longer a crime and

puts the onus on the transaction itself, where it belongs.

In addressing the issue of making criminals out of now presently

law abiding citizens, let's examine this part of the bill:

  Section 597.4 is added to the penal code to read;

  (b) (1) A person who violates this section for the first time

  shall be guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to

  exceed two hundred fifty dollars ($250).

  (2) A person who violates this section for the first time and

  by that violation either causes or permits any animal to

  suffer or be injured, or causes or permits any animal to be

  placed in a situation in which its life or health may be

  endangered , shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

  (3) A person who violates this section for a second or

  subsequent time shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

  (c) A person who is guilty of a misdemeanor violation of this

  section shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one

  thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation; the court shall weigh

  the gravity of the violation in setting the fine.



We respectfully ask what is the intent of this section:

  2) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION FOR THE FIRST TIME AND

  BY THAT VIOLATION EITHER CAUSES OR PERMITS ANY ANIMAL TO

  SUFFER OR BE INJURED OR CAUSE OR PERMIT ANY ANIMAL TO BE

  PLACED IN A SITUATION IN WHICH ITS LIFE OR HEALTH MAY BE

  ENDANGERED SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR ...



This is out of place here and does not seem to fit with the rest

of the bill but could be misused as a catchall for all sorts of

things. Any sporting event an animal participates in involves

risks: agility competitions, horse jumping events, hunting and

most certainly rodeos ..... It appears on the face to apply even

if the animal(s) are not injured, just the potential of harm is

good enough for being guilty of breaking the law. There is no

mention of intent and thereby, even accidents could be included

such as a traffic accident involving a horse trailer where the

horse is injured. This is so vague that it could be used to

harass anyone with a working animal or use any incidental injury

as a Penal code violation.



  d) A notice describing the charge and the penalty for a

  violation of this section may be issued by any peace officer;

  animal control officer, as defined in Section 830.9; or humane

  officer qualified pursuant to Section 14502 or 14503 of the

  Corporations Code.



Animal Control is not a non profit approved by the IRS and state

of California. It is a PRIVATE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION which is a

PRIVATE CORPORATION. They do NOT get their powers (which they

don.t have anyway) from 14500 thru 14503. A Municipal Corporation

is a PRIVATE CORPORATION. That's why Animal Control cannot be

delegated powers by the Legislature. Only police

departments/sheriff's offices are state trained and certified,

and therefore, state authorized government law enforcement. Peace

Officer salaries etc. are partially funded by the state. They are

in effect State Officers. Animal Control officers are NOT funded

in any way by the state. They can try to read it any way they

want, but it remains unconstitutional to delegate law enforcement

powers to private entities. The CORPORATE CODE IS NOT ABOUT STATE

LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT IS ABOUT PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.



To equate animal control officers and humane officers with the

same powers, responsibilities, risks and arming them as peace

officers will surely lead to demands for the same salaries,

pensions and other benefits that will amount to hundreds of

millions of dollars in costs to the state annually. Humane

Officers are a huge liability to the state because of vague laws,

implied powers and the resulting deaths and damages to the

citizens of the State of California . (Pending WRONGFUL DEATH

LAWSUIT of senior citizen, Los Angeles ). We are deeply concerned

that the unconstitutional transfer of police power to "humane

officers" casually mentioned as enforcing parties will serve to

only expand illegal actions by so-called "humane" organizations

against innocent Californians and their animals. The California

Constitution clearly and emphatically states that no law may be

enacted that would confer power to private corporations.



The Corporations Code illegally grants powers to a Society for

the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Humane Society, a

private corporation, the ability to authorize employees of that

corporation, to enforce peace officer powers of arrest,

enforcement of warrants, carry a loaded firearm while on duty,

and powers to affect an arrest using force. While a Judge of a

local Superior Court is involved in the appointment of a Humane

Officer, the court itself does not grant these powers. The

Corporations Code allows privately employed humane officers to

illegally display and wear a law enforcement badge. While the

Corporations Code requires certain educational qualifications,

these qualifications are not certified by the Commission on Peace

Officers Standards and Training. The Corporations Code illegally

requires local cities and counties to pay $500.00 to a private

corporation to augment the salaries of Humane Officers.



What IS THE DEFINITION OF POLICE POWERS IN THE CALIFORNIA

CONSTITUTION? There is none as there is no such thing as police

powers - it is VOID for vagueness. This is why VOID FOR VAGUENESS

is described in our California Constitution just for laws like

CPC 830.9, CPC 832, CPC 836 and many more that are complicit with

and lobbyied for by the Animal Rights syndicate. These laws are

left to interpretation for the layman and the untrained and

heavily armed humane officers that prey on the citizens through

illegal search and seizures of property with/without illegally

issued warrants from judges who also don.t understand the

California Legislature's vague laws. _VOID FOR VAGUENESS creates

the unconstitutional 5th Amendment Takings of Citizen's

Constitutional Rights to own and sell Property; and Interferes

with the Commerce Code of the United States and the basic

principals of Free Enterprise._



AB 1122 states that animals (private property) cannot be sold

from public property which could also face challenge due to three

California precedent cases: putting for sale signs on a vehicle

parked on the street, (Ventura County and City of Los Angeles);

limiting yard sales (City of Los Angeles) all violating the

constitutional rights of free enterprise, the right to sell

property and limiting commerce. (Cases supplied upon request)



  Article 2. SEC. 12. No amendment to the Constitution, and no

  statute proposed to the electors by the Legislature or by

  initiative, that names any individual to hold any office, or

  names or identifies any private corporation to perform any

  function or to have any power or duty, may be submitted to the

  electors or have any effect.



We respectfully request that the words "animal control and humane

officers" be struck from this bill and that exemptions be added

protecting events such as obedience trials, cat and dog shows,

horse competitive conformation and sporting events, rescue

missions, animal transport and many more events nearly too

numerous to mention that would be jeopardized by broad

interpretation of AB 1122.



THE BILL STATES ANIMAL CONTROL AND HUMANE ORGANIZATIONS ARE

EXEMPT. WHY?

ANIMAL CONTROL AND HUMANE ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD NEVER BE EXEMPT

WITH REGARD TO ANY CRUELTY LEGISLATION. HOW CAN WE ALLOW

EXEMPTION OF THOSE WHO ARE SUPPOSEDLY THERE TO PROTECT AND SERVE

FROM THE SAME LAWS WE MUST FOLLOW?

(See Attached recent photos from the SPCA of LA and Los Angeles

County Animal Control. DVD available.)



In the interest of correct legislative code designation of this

bill now under SECTION 1. Section 597.4 is added to the Penal

Code, to read:



597.4., we suggest that due to the context within of "sale of

animals", it should instead be placed under the following codes:

Food and Agriculture Code 16441.5 (Civil Penalties and Remedies)

(new) for horses and other livestock;

Food & Agriculture Code 30505 (General Provisions) (new), or

30950 (Regulation) (new), or 31400 (Violations) for all other

animal sales.



If the true intent of the proposed legislation is to eliminate

the sale of puppies which have been smuggled in from Mexico to be

sold at flea markets in Southern California, there are already

laws that can and should be enforced to the fullest extent, and

there are federal agencies that handle this type of crime,

including the U.S. Border Patrol Puppy Task Force. There are, in

fact, figures published that such puppies are coming across the

border in the thousands, many dying in transit. The proposed

legislation as written, if enforced against all private

individuals with a single litter of puppies, will use so much

manpower and budget dollars that it will compromise and

negatively impact the strategy needed to control and eliminate

the illegal importation and sale of puppies and will create an

increasing hazard to health of both humans and animals in the

State of California. If domestic born puppies are confiscated by

animal control agencies and confined with sickly imports they

will be put at risk of contracting contagious diseases,

potentially resulting in death, creating an even greater burden

on State and County budgets. To place these puppies into shelters

places them in harm's way and the unnecessary tax burden on both

local and state government and already overburdened budgets is

something that State and local governments cannot afford.



Yet, another aspect should be discussed in light of public

safety. Many people sell or place rescued animals do so in public

places to protect their families and homes from becoming a target

for criminals. One highly publicized crime occurred in which the

family was selling a litter of Yorkshire Terrier puppies and

invited the prospective buyers to come to their house to view the

pups and parents. What happened next was a home invasion with

multiple armed assailants in which the family was terrorized at

gunpoint and the pups including the mother dog were stolen, which

was all captured on the family's home security videotape system.



Even now, this type of home invasion and robbery is ever more

prevalent to even those re-selling vehicles or even furniture. It

has long been known that in many cases the visitors inspecting

puppies at the breeder's residence for purchase return later to

steal the pups out of the family's yard. Taking away the ability

for people to act in the interest of their own security by

meeting in a public place should not be removed as an option as

violent crime could escalate which would be a far worse outcome

than the present issue AB 1122 tries to solve.



Furthermore, to avoid criminalizing an entire sector of presently

law-abiding citizens, as well as addressing the fact that this

bill creates a new "crime" consideration should be duly given to

the protocol for crime or infraction laws. In many cases, when a

new crime or infraction thereof, is put into law, such as the

seat-belt and cell phone laws, the first offense merits only a

WARNING. Second offense would be better served with a mandatory

assignment of community service within the local municipal animal

shelter; and any subsequent offenses be designated as civil

offenses with appropriate fines. To place this new offense of

"selling animals" within the Penal Code, will only serve to

increase enforcement costs to the State and thereby costs will be

passed down to the taxpayer. There should also be exclusions of

any concurrent charges for the same event.



Please do not hesitate to contact us for further clarification

and input. We deeply appreciate this opportunity to address our

concerns and grievances with you.

Sincerely,

Diane Amble

Director

We the People Pets

[ Show Entire Thread ]