Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I just saw a law (not for my area) that was writen that poisonous reptiles were illegal. Would it be possible to use this as a loophole because no reptiles are truely poisonous. They are venomous. I know its over the technical definition of the word, but isn't that one aspect of laws, that they must be written technically correct or another laywer will use it as a loophole?

just a thought.

>>I just saw a law (not for my area) that was writen that poisonous reptiles were illegal. Would it be possible to use this as a loophole because no reptiles are truely poisonous.

I'd exploit it (if I wanted to keep hots). The whole "venomous" vs. "poisonous" thing is a pet peeve of mine.

I'm told in my town, they once had a law outlawing the keeping of all poisonous turtles! That's what you get when people who have no clue attempt to write legislation. I'm guessing that's what was the case with whoever wrote your lousy law.
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

Poisonous turtles

That is an interesting argument, and I think it may have some merit.

Resolution of the issue would probably require arguments regarding statutory construction, expert testimony regarding the poisonous / venomous distinction, etc..

Also, be sure that no other provisions in the statute define the term "poisonous" in a way that defeats your argument. If the law explicitly defines "poisonous" in a way that includes venomous snakes you could have a problem. Additionally, make sure that no species are enumerated as being prohibited, as that list might be extrapolated to include snakes with similar characteristics that have not been specifically mentioned.

Adios,

Prosecutor / RWK

[The information contained in this post is not intended to be, nor should it be considered, "legal advice". Further, this post does not establish a contractual or attorney-client relationship, nor is it a solicitation to engage in such relationship.]