Posted by:
obeligz
at Fri May 29 05:33:56 2009 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by obeligz ]
JOIN THE CRUSADE>>> HSUS (JOIN THE CRUSADE)
source;
- http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pet/1194264352.html
Date: 2009-05-28, 7:43PM PDT
'Join the Crusade against HSUS Pass it Forward'
CA AB1122: WHY HSUS DOESN’T WANT “TRANSFERS” OF ANIMALS
April 19, 2009 · 1 Comment
How does HSUS Work Against Pets Owners?
HSUS passes laws (HSUS has almost 200 laws for this year) then uses those laws for cases it plans to bring forward, then uses those cases in their incremental process to bring down both interstate commerce and pet ownership, kennels, pet stores, dog breeders, along with difficulties for agriculture and other animals.
We can guarantee that the CA Prop 2 (battery cages) will come back to haunt us in pet ownership, or farming. HSUS will probably find some other ways to outlaw farm animals or make a huge problem for farming–after all HSUS right NOW is trying to outlaw all “non-native” species including birds, herps,guineas,ferrets, turtles and many other common species in the USA that have been owned for 50-100 years.
Ownership in the law, is of the highest legal nature, and as a concept, usually means the ultimate control over the item owned. It also usually refers to having the control legally over such item (property) and also the right to use it for as long as is allowed in the law, and in many instances, to bring a lawsuit where the owner’s rights are affected. Guardianship does NOT necessarily mean any of the same things, which is why animal rights prefers it over “owner.”
CA law has statutes that show one of the main incidents of ownership in property, is the right to TRANSFER it (Bias v Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 14,16). Or, “A common characteristic of a property right, is that it may be disposed of, transferred to another.” (Douglas Aircraft Co. v Byram (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 311, 317)
Thefore we can see why Peta wanted to take possession/ownership of different animals because after they owned them, they could just dispose of them in the garbage dump (after killing them via lethal injection)—and they suffered no consequences. [Actually it appeared there was fraud in the procurement of the animals but we don't know if they were hit for that.]
And, we can see why HSUS doesn’t want animals TRANSFERRED to others because that’s an element of OWNERSHIP.
The obvious next step for HSUS is to claim if animals can’t be sold or transferred, then that means THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY.
HSUS is currently trying to outlaw the use (import, export, transport, breeding) or movement in interstate commerce of any non native species via HR669 in Congress by using the Lacey Act. See the PIJAC website for details, or see the post on this site with the link to PIJAC.
read the rest of the story at;
- http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pet/1194264352.html
[ Hide Replies ]
|
Join the crusade - obeligz, Fri May 29 05:33:56 2009