The next hearing for AB 1117 is on 6/28
IMMEDIATELY OPPOSE AB 1117 & SB 917
“Lieu’s One-Two Knock-out Punch” to end all animal farming and
raising in California to usher in his vision of a purely vegan California. These two bills also seem to be small stepping stones towards implementing Agenda 21.
Lieu intends to do this by redefining farming, animal raising,
selling, transport and showing as “animal cruelty”.
in SB 917. Then the law set in motion by AB1117 will give
animal control officers massive power to be able
to seize your assets when convicted of “animal cruelty” as
defined by SB 917whether they be your pets,
service animals, herd, computers, farm, house, etc. But that is
not all, AB 1117 is written in a way that
if “animal cruelty” is found then you will be prevented from
owning and raising animals for 5 years.
AB 1117 is to be heard in the SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY Committee on
6/28/2011. Time is critically running out to oppose this
dreadful bill.
Specific instructs to oppose can be found under bill
description below.
These horrid bills have both quietly snuck through the Assembly
and Senate and they are now at the final committee hearings
where they will be killed outright or will go quickly for a
floor vote and then onto extremely liberal Governor Brown for
his signature.
If we love animals and our proud American farming tradition,
our pets, pure bred dogs & cats, birds, and our wonderful
Rabbit hobby, then all of us must stand up and oppose these
bills. The Animal Rights extremists intend to end our way of
life for us and for all future generations of Americans. They
think they know what is best for us and our children. If they
can’t convince us to be pet-less vegans then they will force it
upon us under the color of law. This must end. This is our
Normandy. Please send in your opposition letters as soon as
possible and then, just as critically important, please get
your friends
Here is a brief description of AB 1117: (credit goes to Peggy Ricter)
Regarding AB1117: this bill has passed the assembly and is
currently in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1101-1150/ab_1117_bill_20110620_status.html
It amends an existing law. Primarily, I commented on the two
major things this bill does that would affect anyone with any
animal:
Existing law requires a convicted person to pay for the seizure
and care of seized dogs. This proposed bill expands the law to
require a lien on the animal upon a correctly issued warrant –
regardless of innocence or guilt.
The bill specifies “ (j) No animal properly seized under this
section or pursuant to a search warrant shall be returned to
its owner until, in the determination of the seizing agency or
hearing officer, the animal is physically fit or the owner can
demonstrate to the seizing agency’s or hearing officer’s
satisfaction that the owner can and will provide the necessary
care.” This doesn’t provide for any IMPARTIAL determination by
a judge or jury. – the same entity that seizes the animals are
those who are unilaterally the ones that determine if the
owner “can and will provide necessary care”. As has been seen
in revelations regarding cities like Bell, it is quite possible
for officials and agencies to abuse their authority for
personal gain. The safeguard against this has, and should
remain the right of a citizen for proper due process and trial
in an impartial setting. Even in the case of a ticket for
reckless driving, a citizen has a right to challenge in a
court of law and their property is not seized for failure to
pay the fine – how much MORE so should the State be reluctant
to impose such a penalty when such seizure involves what may be
a well-loved pet.
Finally, the bill specifies: “597.9. (a) Except as provided
in subdivision (c) or (d), any person who has been convicted of
a misdemeanor violation …. and who, within five years after the
conviction, owns, possesses, maintains, has custody of, resides
with,
or cares for any animal is guilty of a public offense,
punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000).” —
this does not address INNOCENT parties (husband, wife, minor
child or other dependent) who “RESIDE WITH” this individual who
would then be forced to eliminate ANY animal (up to and
including guppies or service dogs) in order to comply with the
law. Not only is this an excessive penalty for a misdemeanor,
who is going to pay for its enforcement? How many more parole
officers will be needed to ensure compliance?
So if a 5 year old has a pet rabbit and the cops arrest her
uncle (who is visiting, doesn’t live there) for animal abuse,
you have to prove to the people that took the animal that it is
healthy and can be returned. Doesn’t matter, by the way, if
the uncle was found not guilty. If you have an anti tether law
forbidding any animal to be “tied out” and someone ties their
horse to a hitching rail they could be convicted. Current law
already allows for requiring people CONVICTED of a crime to pay
for the care / rescue of the animals. This bill MANDATES it and
doesn’t address innocent parties. Current law already ALLOWS a judge to decide that
a person should not be permitted to have any animals. This bill mandates
it, again without concern for anyone else who may be affected. The 5 year
period is excessive for a MISDEMEANOR when felony convictions often don’t
get 5 year sentences.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety” – Benjamin Franklin
**********************************************************************
AB 1117 is now in the Senate Public Safety Committee. To FAX your
opposition letters to AB 1117 to the following. (You do not have time to
send them before this hearing.) All letter must have the following phrase
at the top of the letter or your opposition will not be included: I (name
of organization or individual) strongly oppose SB 917 as amended and
in any and all forms.
A sample letter is attached to this alert. Please feel free to use it,
insert your information, and change or modify it to best convey your
personal opposition.
Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916)
Fax: (916) 558-3160
___________________________________
Author of AB 1117:
ASM Cameron Smyth
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 4098
Sacramento, CA 95814
(P) 916-319-2038
(F) 916-319-2138
Co-authors:
Senator Ted Lieu
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 4090
Sacramento, CA
95814
Phone: (916)
Fax: (916)
Senator Loni Hancock
Capitol Office
Phone: (916)
Fax: (916)
State Capitol, Room 2082
Sacramento, CA 95814
Senator Tony Strickland
State Capitol, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4019
Fax: (916) 324-7544
Senate Public Safety Committee
Members
Senator
Senator Joel Anderson (Vice
Phone: (916) 651-4036
Fax: (916) 447-9008
Phone: (916) 651-4030
Fax: (916) 327-8755
Senator Tom Harman
Phone: (916)
Fax: (916) 445-9263
Senator Carol Liu
Phone: (916) 651-4021
Fax: (916)
Senator Curren Price
Phone: (916) 651-4026
Fax: (916)
Senator Darrell Steinberg
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
Addresses & Staff
Chief Counsel: Alison Anderson
Counsels: Mary Kennedy, Jerome McGuire and Steven Meinrath
Assistants: Mona Cano and Dina Lucero
Phone: (916) 651-4118
Room: 2031
Full Bill
Status of Bill
Mirror on Rabbit Smarties
Anyone CONVICTED of animal cruelty or animal neglect has no business maintaining or owning animals of any kind. I see nothing wrong with the subject animals being handed over to the ASPCA and the owner forced to pay a heavy fine and his rights to own animals of all types be forever abolished.
I can see this bill shutting down dairys, cattle and sheep operations and chicken farms. Since the San Joaquin Valley farmers are now cut off from water supplies your farming is drying up. NO veggies, no cotton, no nuts, no grapes and many other things are going to go bye bye.
This is what Democracy looks like.
Starvation, artificial drought, looting, government instituted theft.
Want jobs – Replace your politicians with actual people – Don’t keep the unmitigated liars in office.
I think everyone can agree that anyone convicted of animal cruelty can agree with that, Laura. I think you missed the obvious one two punch mentioned in the first paragraph though (2 bills, not just one, and how they interact with each other) as well as the very real possible scenarios detailed near the bottom of the post for how this can be abused by an agency or judge with no oversight and no legal process. Theres also the fact that if merely paying a fine to get the animal back, it doesnt make the animal any safer. That makes this at BEST a revenue generation scheme, and thats if we simply ignore how this factors in with agenda 21 to devastate not just pet raising but also food sources. they already crippled the central valley with turning the water off. starvation on a mass scale next?