Why are those who cause legislation "exempt" from it?


PDA






jimpeel
October 31, 2003, 06:08 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101838,00.html

Senate Passes Bill Restricting Sale of Big Cats

Friday, October 31, 2003

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Friday moved to crack down on the proliferation of lions, tigers and other big cats being kept as pets, an issue that has gained attention after recent high-profile maulings.

Under legislation passed by voice vote, transporting big cats across state lines would be banned. Accredited circuses, zoos and sanctuaries are exempt, as are animal trainers such as magician Roy Horn, nearly killed a month ago by one of his tigers.

The measure is instead aimed at pet owners such as Antoine Yates, who earlier this month was attacked by the tiger he raised in his New York City apartment. He faces charges of reckless endangerment and possession of a wild animal.

"We've seen too many incidents where dangerous exotic cats have endangered public safety and been treated inhumanely," said Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., who co-sponsored the bill with Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign, a veterinarian.

The multibillion-dollar exotic animal industry, boosted in recent years by more Internet sales, is loosely monitored by regulations that vary from state to state and even county to county. Proponents of stricter laws say interstate transport is the glue holding the industry together.

There are currently some 15,000 pet tigers, lions and other big cats around the country, according to the Humane Society (search) of the United States. The 5,000 to 7,000 privately owned tigers probably exceed the total number in the wild, said Wayne Pacelle, senior vice president.

"It is absolutely insane for people to keep 500-pound wild carnivores as pets," he said.

Patti Strand, president of the National Animal Interest Alliance, which opposed earlier versions of the bill, said she was satisfied the exemptions leave room for responsible individual owners.

"Private ownership shouldn't be outlawed if it can be regulated," she said.

Similar legislation has stalled in the House since being approved by the Resources Committee in September, and congressional aides said last week it was unlikely to move before Congress adjourns this year.

But a Senate aide indicated Thursday it may have new life.

"We're hopeful and confident it's going to go," said Ensign spokesman Jack Finn. So Roy Horn is exempt from legislation that he was instrumental in causing to be brought about.

Cops are exempt from "smart gun" legislation that is touted as being for their protection.

There are numerous other examples but, why bother. I'm just one of the minions.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why are those who cause legislation "exempt" from it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Hkmp5sd
October 31, 2003, 06:14 PM
For the same reason members of congress are exempted from such things as sexual harassment laws, they are the elite and laws are to keep the peasants in line.

Waitone
October 31, 2003, 07:12 PM
Simple

Its call the golden rule.

"Them whats got the gold. . . . . rules."

No surprise there.

Standing Wolf
October 31, 2003, 08:37 PM
Our elected misrepresentatives believe they're the new aristocracy.

Most of them need to be fired.

El Tejon
October 31, 2003, 09:05 PM
Peasant! How dare you! Back to your rice paddy!

jimpeel
October 31, 2003, 09:08 PM
Break's over! Back on your heads!

Jeff White
October 31, 2003, 09:16 PM
We need to sequester congress like a jury when it's in session. That way they could get their real job done, passing budgets etc. and not write kneejerk meaningless legislation based on what they see on the news.

Wasn't the NY law Yates was charged under adequate?

Jeff

Mark Tyson
October 31, 2003, 09:23 PM
I think they're exempting institutions like zoos and performers because they can be more easily regulated.

7.62FullMetalJacket
October 31, 2003, 09:56 PM
We need protection from ourselves! Help! :cuss:

geekWithA.45
October 31, 2003, 10:38 PM
Break's over! Back on your heads!

:neener:

Haven't heard that one in a coupla years :)

Orthonym
November 2, 2003, 08:06 AM
I recommend to you all the joke about the dog and his, uh, private parts.

erikm
November 3, 2003, 06:34 AM
I think they're exempting institutions like zoos and performers because they can be more easily regulated.
Or because they're more likely to have the (vet) skills required to deal with big cats. I kind of agree with the 'big cats aren't for everyone' stance. If you want to keep a cat as a pet, you are IMO responsible for that pet, including knowing how to handle it. With a siamese or tabby that isn't a problem. With a lion or tiger it's quite another story.

:scrutiny: What they seem to be going after are people who buy a big cat on a lark, without having the skills to keep it. :scrutiny:

Some people may wonder why Roy Horn would be exempted. The reason likely is that Roy not only runs a performance act, he also runs what amounts to a private big cat zoo including a breeding program. He (or his people) likely already has to jump through a large number of hoops for that, including showing skill in handling and keeping.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

tiberius
November 3, 2003, 08:03 AM
Or because they're more likely to have the (vet) skills required to deal with big cats. I kind of agree with the 'big cats aren't for everyone' stance


Hhmmm, change "big cats" to "guns" and you have the same logic that that antis use.

Just because you or I do not keep "big cats" doesn't mean it should be prohibited or restricted to "professionals". Of course the owners (of any pet) should be responsible for the actions of the pets, but restricting them to a professional class is just one more step of the "wimpification" of America....Heck, most people don't even know how to work on their cars anymore...They just leave it to the "professional" :barf:

HankB
November 3, 2003, 08:41 AM
What part of the US Constitution gives the Feds the right to regulate pets?By what logic is this a Federal matter at all? This is a matter for state and local (zoning?) laws.

As I see it, the ONLY way the Feds have a right to stick their nose in is if they're dealing with IMPORT of big cats (international commerce) or, possibly, if the cats cross state lines. (interstate commerce)

I wonder what the Founders would say about the Federal Government they created doing stuff like this?

erikm
November 3, 2003, 09:21 AM
Hhmmm, change "big cats" to "guns" and you have the same logic that that antis use.

Just because you or I do not keep "big cats" doesn't mean it should be prohibited or restricted to "professionals". Of course the owners (of any pet) should be responsible for the actions of the pets, but restricting them to a professional class is just one more step of the "wimpification" of America....Heck, most people don't even know how to work on their cars anymore...They just leave it to the "professional" :barf:


Not really. Despite the BB's ranting, a gun isn't alive. Most people can be quickly and simply trained to handle handguns and if the training is followed, the gun will 'react' the same way every time.

The same can not be said for a big cat unless:
- the handler is kept out of reach of the cat or
- the handler has several years experience with the cat
Even in these cases, things can go wrong (as Roy found out).

What they seem to be trying to target are the people who keep big cats in unsafe conditions for themselves, their neigbors and possibly the cats. People like that mad New Yorker who kept the tiger in his apartment.

Now if you want to keep a tiger as a pet, go right ahead. Just make sure you have the right skills, enclosures and safeguards for the job. It'll spare law enforcement from having to clean up some gory messes and/or having to shoot the animals.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

Ian
November 3, 2003, 10:43 AM
I kind of agree with the 'big cats aren't for everyone' stance
Absolutely; big cats are NOT for everyone. But the decision of whether or not a big cat is for you should be up to you, not some bureaucrat.

twoblink
November 4, 2003, 03:28 AM
Everybody is created equal, some more equal than others..

For some reason, if you have the word "Senator" in front of your name, you somehow gain magic powers that exempt you..:barf:

Sergeant Bob
November 4, 2003, 05:26 AM
Now tell me, seriously, do you really want your IDIOT NEIGHBOR to have a 500 lb Bengal Tiger in his back yard, when he can't even keep his stinking little Chihauhau from getting loose?

tiberius
November 4, 2003, 06:16 AM
Now tell me, seriously, do you really want your IDIOT NEIGHBOR to have a 500 lb Bengal Tiger in his back yard, when he can't even keep his stinking little Chihauhau from getting loose?

Isn't this just a zoning issue though? Should be handelled locally, not Federally.

Sergeant Bob
November 4, 2003, 06:34 AM
Isn't this just a zoning issue though? Should be handelled locally, not Federally.
Could be a state issue too (I'd really hate to give the Zoning Nazis any more power than they already have :what: ).
School Free Gun Zones
Tiger Free Chihuahua Zones:confused:

Leatherneck
November 4, 2003, 08:46 AM
do you really want your IDIOT NEIGHBOR to have a 500 lb Bengal Tiger in his back yard Doesn't bother me. That's what guns are for. :evil:

TC
TFL Survivor

tyme
November 4, 2003, 03:50 PM
(Sergeant) Now tell me, seriously, do you really want your IDIOT NEIGHBOR to have a 500 lb Bengal Tiger in his back yard, when he can't even keep his stinking little Chihauhau from getting loose?
This doesn't just affect the idiot keeping a bengal tiger in an apartment. This also affects someone who has a lot of land with an indestructable fence or natural boundaries, and who likes cats. Congress knows how to ban just bengals in apartments using their twisted notion of interstate commerce. They didn't do that. This law makes it illegal " to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce" a "lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, or cougar." Notice the lack of "possess" or "own." It doesn't ban ownership of such things if they've previously been transported in interstate commerce. It doesn't ban ownership of such things if they affect interstate commerce. Anyone who can smuggle any of those cats across state lines into their own state is free and clear as long as there's no proof they smuggled it in. Possession of cats previously transported in interstate or foreign commerce is not illegal under this law.

Congress passes yet another nonsense law. Yawn. If it wasn't this bill, it would have been something else.

Augustwest
November 4, 2003, 04:16 PM
Doesn't ban possession, just transport over state lines.

It's the Interstate Commerce Claws, doncha know... :D

tyme
November 4, 2003, 04:26 PM
That's never stopped them before. The U.S. Code is full of laws prohibiting ownership of anything if a gram of material incorporated into it used to be in another state.

All claws, no bite?

CommonSense
November 4, 2003, 11:40 PM
Answering “jimpeel’s” original question: Because most of them don’t have a clue. Most vote on whatever they think they can get away with – right or wrong.

Orthonym
November 5, 2003, 12:09 AM
I think I recall reading recently, that lots and lots of African lions are suffering from a retrovirus, equivalent to HIV in humans, which bids fair to wipe out the species. If there are isolated big cats, one or two to a human keeper, separated by hundreds of miles from each other, it seems to me that this would retard the spread of the disease.

That is, a few isolated big cats kept by weird big-cat-lover humans way out in the boonies just might tend to promote the survival of big cats.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why are those who cause legislation "exempt" from it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!