Politics Archive

Text of the proposed amendment here.

Current status here.

This amendment will allow the court to sell, donate to a shelter, or destroy any animal thats been seized for PROBABLE CAUSE of abuse or neglect BEFORE the owner has their day in court.  And if the owner is then found not guilty they do not get their animal back.

This amendment will also, if the court does not decide on the above, to allow the court to set a “bond or security” that the ACCUSED owner must pay, to cover the costs of caring for the animals while the court case is pending.  And if the owner is found not guilty the funds will be returned to them.  HOWEVER, failure to pay those funds in the first place (because, you know, court costs alone are expensive) the animal is forfeited REGARDLESS of the outcome of the court case.

2 Comments so far. Join the Conversation

This one’s for you NH people.  I know there’s at least a couple of you who read here.

House Bill 0624 is going to modify the process of what happens when an animal is seized for abuse or the like.  I just did a quick scan of the text, but at least one problem jumped at me right away.

Apparently current process: your dog is seized for abuse, you go to court, and if you’re convicted you’re expected to pay for the costs of the care for the animal while it was in custody.

What they want to do: your dog is seized for abuse, you get handed a bill for the care of the animal before you even get to court, and if you can’t pay that bill you lose custody of the dog regardless of whether you end up convicted or not.  Cause you know, guilty till proven innocent or some such……

I can sympathize that caring for an animal, especially a sick or injured animal, while waiting for a case to go to court isn’t cheap and eats up the limited resources of shelters, but this isn’t the right solution either.

There have been SO MANY cases of reports of abuse that aren’t anywhere close to such.  People who see an animal with “an obvious health problem” where the animal is under the care of a vet for the condition and the owner is taking the appropriate steps to care for the animal.  And sometimes there isn’t a “health problem” at all beyond the reporter’s imagination and lack of knowledge of life.  

Its not bad enough that you’re spending alot of money on the vet bills and medications that your sick animal needs, but now, cause some idiot reported you for abuse and it went viral (which happens WAY TOO OFTEN cause people are fucking stupid), and the local ACO gave in to pressure, they seized your dog, so now you have to pay a ton of money in legal bills to get him back and clear your name……but now they want to  charge you for caring for the dog (which you were doing properly at home in the first place) and if you can’t pay that bill TOO you’re going to lose your dog no matter what the outcome of the court case……

Maryland folks, I’m being told that there’s a similar bill(s) pending in your state as well, I’ve not stopped to read them yet, but consider this a heads up you’ll want to check on!

Tracking new legislation in your state

Posted February 5, 2015 By Ruth

I ran across this site LegiScan today.  I haven’t registered for the free account yet, but the base tool that’s available without that has already proved its use to me…..

The .GOV is at it again

Posted November 14, 2013 By Ruth

Several months ago (maybe even a year ago) I was made aware that the EPA was looking at extra restrictions on wood-burning stoves/fireplaces/furnaces/etc. 

I was, of course, less than thrilled at the idea.  But I wasn’t worried about it for ourselves PERSONALLY.  The stove we have is the Lopi Patriot and according to the manual its rated at 4.4Grams/hour (scroll down to the bottom of page 6):

4.4 Grams Per Hour (EPA Phase II Approved) – Tests conducted by E.E.S.P.C.

Well below the 7.5G/h for non-catalytic wood burning stoves that the EPA was going to require.  Heck, its even within the stricter requirements for the state of Washington.

Well, the EPA has finally released its new regulations along with a list of approved wood stoves.

Guess what stove isn’t on the approved list.

And its not because its no longer in production.  If you check the above linked list they list several stoves that are no longer in production.

Sure its not going to affect us NOW.  But  I suspect that if we ever have to move it, change it, or anything else that technically requires a permit from the town or county to do work involving it we could run into some issues…..

ObamaCare

Posted November 4, 2013 By Ruth

I’ve not posted on it, and I expect that this will be about it unless something happens.  Among other things, since I’m in NY, I can’t just hop on the .gov site and get a list of quotes.  I have to create an account on the NY site and give them all sorts of personal info.  And since at this point in time I don’t need their assistance I’m quite reluctant to do that just to see whats going on.

However my Aunt, who lives in FL, has been working her way through it as she’s been hoping to retire a bit early and health insurance has been the big stumbling block.

She had all sorts of problems getting quotes.  Website based problems.

This past week she finally managed to get all the ducks to line up……

My Aunt is 62.  She’s never given birth to a child, never adopted a child, never had custody of a child.  To the best of my knowledge (and certinally since they got married) the same is true for her husband (substitute fathered for given birth).

ObamaCare is requiring her to buy pediatric dental coverage.

 

Whats almost worse, in my opinion, its apparently so common a problem that her preferred health insurance company has a no-cost pediatric dental coverage policy specifically for people like my Aunt.

I’ve already managed to forget who’s blog I saw this on, I guess I need more coffee….

NYSRPA is holding a raffle to raise funds to help in the fight against the SAFE act.  The prize includes:

 

    • A private shooting excursion hosted by Manhattan Shooting Excursions for two shooters on a range near Scranton, Pennsylvania.

    • One night at a local hotel, double occupancy.

    • Professional supervised instruction on the use of all firearms.

    • Use of Full Auto Hardware including: UZI, M-16, AK-74, Glock 34FA, Razorback.

    • Use of Suppressed Weapons including: Sig Sauer MK25 with AAC Ti-Rant Silencer, HK USP Tactical with AAC Ti-Rant Silencer, Remington M7 .300 BLK. with AAC MK34 Silencer, Sig Sauer Mosquito with Tactical Solutions Cascade-Ti Silencer.

 

 

Tickets are $25 each, I bought two.  The raffle ends Dec 31, 2013, and you must be 18 or over and able to legally posses firearms in order to get the prize.

So how come no-one’s sueing the MDSPD?

Posted July 16, 2013 By Ruth

From Here

Either of those incidents could have put Trayvon Martin into the custody of the juvenile justice system. However, because of Chief Hurley’s attempt to reduce the school crime statistics — according to sworn testimony, officers were “basically told to lie and falsify” reports — Martin was never arrested. And if he had been arrested, he might never have been in Sanford the night of his fatal encounter with Zimmerman.

Something tells me no-one’s gonna either

H/T to Never Yet Melted

I did not know this

Posted July 16, 2013 By Ruth

But I find it quite amusing…..

Here

The fact is Florida’s stand-your-ground law is quite common, 33 states are effectively SYG states and have very similar provisions.  In fact there is one state that not only lets you to stand your ground,it explicitly allows you to pursue your assailant if necessary for your safety.  And that state is California [where the station is located].

(emphasis mine)

I haven’t had a chance to listen to the whole thing, hopefully I’ll have time later today.

H/T to Clark @ Popehat

 

I followed the case enough to see enough of the evidence to realize just how badly the media tried to screw with the evidence.  Which basically just confirmed my distrust of the media in general.  And then people wonder why I insist on actual facts and data when I get into arguments….

Anyway, my sole real comment on the whole mess:

I sincerely hope that they never release the personal information detailing who the jury was…..

NY Insurance law change — Attn Dog Owners

Posted June 24, 2013 By Ruth

NY A3952 is designed to amend current state law on insurance.  The intention is to prohibit insurers from denying insurance, or charging higher rates, to dog owners based on the breed of the dog.  The act was written to allow insurers to deny or charger higher rates to the owners of dangerous dogs, but does not allow that designation for no other reason than the dog’s breed.

An additional write up from Stop BSL.

If you live in NY and own a dog please consider letting the State Senate know what you think of the law!