This is a placeholder text
Group text
by 4pack on 24 September 2009 - 15:09
I agree scary. Can't even reside in the same home...what if an ex con has a roomie with a dog? Talk about stupid, pointless and just a waste of paper this law was scribbled on.
by Blkimes on 24 September 2009 - 16:09
Moral of the story: Don't be a felon and it is not a concern for you.
Besides, what is a felon doing having anything to do with a CHILDCARE in the first place???
Besides, what is a felon doing having anything to do with a CHILDCARE in the first place???
by Mystere on 24 September 2009 - 16:09
Quote by Tess:
"See, this is how the anti-pet people/animal rights people are insinuating anti-animal laws into being. So what's next? You have a non-felony crime and you can't own a dog? You get a few traffic tickets and you can't own a dog? You're divorced? You make less than $30,000 a year? and you can't own a dog?
Bad, bad news."
I agree 100%!! I am also disturbed that spaying or neutering the dog provides a defense!! So, what is the real purpose of the legislation? Just to prevent breeding the dogs. Now, is there some data that proves felons are more inclined to breed dogs than non-felons? By that logic, there must be a lot of felons involved in conformation, huh? That is how beyond bizarre this is!!!
I hope that folks in Illinois are now busily contacting their legislators about this garbage, instead of wasting time posting their "political" blatherings on this forum. You have the beginnings of "The PETA-Solution" in your backyard. Are you going to address it, or just continue with the OTs here, as you have been?
"See, this is how the anti-pet people/animal rights people are insinuating anti-animal laws into being. So what's next? You have a non-felony crime and you can't own a dog? You get a few traffic tickets and you can't own a dog? You're divorced? You make less than $30,000 a year? and you can't own a dog?
Bad, bad news."
I agree 100%!! I am also disturbed that spaying or neutering the dog provides a defense!! So, what is the real purpose of the legislation? Just to prevent breeding the dogs. Now, is there some data that proves felons are more inclined to breed dogs than non-felons? By that logic, there must be a lot of felons involved in conformation, huh? That is how beyond bizarre this is!!!
I hope that folks in Illinois are now busily contacting their legislators about this garbage, instead of wasting time posting their "political" blatherings on this forum. You have the beginnings of "The PETA-Solution" in your backyard. Are you going to address it, or just continue with the OTs here, as you have been?
by TessJ10 on 24 September 2009 - 16:09
"Moral of the story: Don't be a felon and it is not a concern for you."
No, that's not true. It IS a concern, because it's a clear case of passing an anti-pet ownership law taking away the right to own a pet FOR NO REASON ANIMAL RELATED.
Not for fighting dogs, not for abusing dogs, not for stealing dogs, not for cruelty. The law takes away something from an American citizen for a reason TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE CRIME. And if laws can get passed saying "you did something wrong, having nothing to do with animals, and as a result you can't own a poodle puppy" what's to prevent the expansion? Can't own after a felony? Maybe can't own after a misdemeanor. Maybe can't own after....what? traffic ticket? fight with your spouse? I don't like the your religion? or your political party? or the way you wear your hair?
Nail him to the wall on the dog fighting. But we need to be very careful about randomly banning pet ownership (in this case of not only the unspayed puppy but ANY dog over 30 lbs.) for others affected by this law, because this law doesn't just affect dog fighters. And whatever sentence he gets on the "owning an unspayed puppy" charge will be used as precedent for any other person, felon or not, in mandatory spay-neuter cases.
No, that's not true. It IS a concern, because it's a clear case of passing an anti-pet ownership law taking away the right to own a pet FOR NO REASON ANIMAL RELATED.
Not for fighting dogs, not for abusing dogs, not for stealing dogs, not for cruelty. The law takes away something from an American citizen for a reason TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE CRIME. And if laws can get passed saying "you did something wrong, having nothing to do with animals, and as a result you can't own a poodle puppy" what's to prevent the expansion? Can't own after a felony? Maybe can't own after a misdemeanor. Maybe can't own after....what? traffic ticket? fight with your spouse? I don't like the your religion? or your political party? or the way you wear your hair?
Nail him to the wall on the dog fighting. But we need to be very careful about randomly banning pet ownership (in this case of not only the unspayed puppy but ANY dog over 30 lbs.) for others affected by this law, because this law doesn't just affect dog fighters. And whatever sentence he gets on the "owning an unspayed puppy" charge will be used as precedent for any other person, felon or not, in mandatory spay-neuter cases.
by DDR-DSH on 24 September 2009 - 16:09
Blkimes..
"The moral of the story" all depends on how you look at it. The safest bet of all is to have nothing to do with dogs. Animal rights activists are trying to felonize all dog breeding which is not licensed ( Don't count on getting a license, and if you do, you'd better watch your back).
I do think it is appropriate that childcare facilities should be licensed. I'll bet they are so required, in Illinois. Who licensed this childcare facility, and where was the oversight? Does this say anything about the competence and reliability of government?
It may not be apparent to everyone reading these things, but there are problems in every industry.. including government and law enforcement. Our courts are being influenced by special interest groups (like animal rights) via the lobbying process. Lobbyists also hire specialists in the media groups ("communications" companies), who plan marketing campaigns to form public opinion.. creating a political pressure on the courts. Judges are elected, are they not?
If you first realize that case law is far more valuable than statutory law to special interest groups, who want to get their agenda codified into law, you may be able to see the danger of this kind of influence in our court system.
I'm beginning to think that the greatest danger to this country and it's freedoms is the majority of "nice" people out there who will go along with anything that sounds good and completely lack in any degree of healthy suspicion, critical thinking, and insight into the agendas of toxic radical groups (in our case, those who believe that the ownership and procreation of animals under our purview and guidance, is wrong).
I am suspicious about the "canned" statements, claiming "no food, no water", alongside of statements to the effect of "soaked with feces and urine". Where does the feces and urine come from, if there is no food and water? This would be the first thing to catch my attention, if I was an honest, intelligent and fair-minded judge.
"The moral of the story" all depends on how you look at it. The safest bet of all is to have nothing to do with dogs. Animal rights activists are trying to felonize all dog breeding which is not licensed ( Don't count on getting a license, and if you do, you'd better watch your back).
I do think it is appropriate that childcare facilities should be licensed. I'll bet they are so required, in Illinois. Who licensed this childcare facility, and where was the oversight? Does this say anything about the competence and reliability of government?
It may not be apparent to everyone reading these things, but there are problems in every industry.. including government and law enforcement. Our courts are being influenced by special interest groups (like animal rights) via the lobbying process. Lobbyists also hire specialists in the media groups ("communications" companies), who plan marketing campaigns to form public opinion.. creating a political pressure on the courts. Judges are elected, are they not?
If you first realize that case law is far more valuable than statutory law to special interest groups, who want to get their agenda codified into law, you may be able to see the danger of this kind of influence in our court system.
I'm beginning to think that the greatest danger to this country and it's freedoms is the majority of "nice" people out there who will go along with anything that sounds good and completely lack in any degree of healthy suspicion, critical thinking, and insight into the agendas of toxic radical groups (in our case, those who believe that the ownership and procreation of animals under our purview and guidance, is wrong).
I am suspicious about the "canned" statements, claiming "no food, no water", alongside of statements to the effect of "soaked with feces and urine". Where does the feces and urine come from, if there is no food and water? This would be the first thing to catch my attention, if I was an honest, intelligent and fair-minded judge.
by Prager on 24 September 2009 - 17:09
There is always reason in someones mind when they pass the law like this. Who possibly woke up in the morning and said I am going to make sure that felons must cut their dogs balls off. There must be some semi sane reason. Anybody has a logical answer?
Prager (Hans)
http://www.alpinek9.com
by Two Moons on 24 September 2009 - 17:09
Makes you wonder about who is representing you at the state and local level huh.
These people that keep getting re-elected year after year. Some for decades.
People worry more about who's in the Whitehouse and less about who's really passing these laws.
Too many good men do nothing.
These people that keep getting re-elected year after year. Some for decades.
People worry more about who's in the Whitehouse and less about who's really passing these laws.
Too many good men do nothing.
by Prager on 24 September 2009 - 18:09
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’
Edmund Burke
Edmund Burke
by Mystere on 24 September 2009 - 19:09
Or, for the evil men to join up with the lunatic fringe...
by Okie Amazon on 24 September 2009 - 19:09
Dang near EVERYTHING is a felony in Oklahoma anymore. Schoolyard fight? FELONY! Too drunk to drive, so you crawl in the back seat to sleep it off? FELONY!! (Actual Physical Control). Better watch your butt.
We have a saying here, "Oklahoma! Come on vacation, leave on probation!"
We have a saying here, "Oklahoma! Come on vacation, leave on probation!"
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top