Trump Signs Animal Cruelty Law

[Radar]

I'll take Michael Vick for 300, Alex.

[BrandonA]

Like others I think it’s a fine line and slippery slope. What concerns me is it seems people are starting to hold lives of animals and lives of humans in equal importance. I’m totally against animal cruelty, but I think the line could be blurred, and not in the favor of agriculture or outdoor enthusiasts.

exactly

[Chew]

I'll take Michael Vick for 300, Alex.

Hey. Leave Michael Vick out of this. He don't have a dog in this fight.

[Radar]

Hey. Leave Michael Vick out of this. He don't have a dog in this fight.

[Drycreek3189]

When a dem gets back in the White House and has a majority y’all watch this rear up and bite us in the azz.

[Bayouboy]

Better not get caught impaling a fish on a hook

[Cbb1722]

Hey. Leave Michael Vick out of this. He don't have a dog in this fight.

I like that and your avatar

[Chew]

I can't believe nobody caught my joke in post #28

[Shane]

It shouldn't be a federal issue. It sounds harmless, but the libs will do their best to use it against us ASAP. Should have never been passed or signed. Leave it to the states and butt out. They'll look for the earliest opportunity to get some court rulings to interpret it more broadly to outlaw hunting.

[Radar]

I can't believe nobody caught my joke in post #28

I seen it, and wanted to say you misspelled Rage

[Graysonhogs]

I had to read that last sentence several times. Amazing that they got that specific.

Shut up Chew.

[softpoint]

It shouldn't be a federal issue. It sounds harmless, but the libs will do their best to use it against us ASAP. Should have never been passed or signed. Leave it to the states and butt out. They'll look for the earliest opportunity to get some court rulings to interpret it more broadly to outlaw hunting.

This ^^ It may not be used to outlaw hunting, but it will be selectively enforced for political reasons. Nefarious intent is the reason it was introduced, in my opinion...

[Hayek'sPupil]

Any use of government force to accomplish a moral goal is disagreeable at the least. It is not the role of government in society to enforce moral obligations on us all.

The only logical question is; how far will we allow government power to expand before all individual freedom is gone?

[cj7zrcool]

Glad they put the non-human mammals thing in there. Wouldn't want to get confused about late term abortion!

Yep. It's amazing what the liberals deem bad/good.

Does this mean I can't gut shoot hogs and let them run off?

IMO, that's chicken ****. I don't like 'em any more than anybody else and I kill every one that I possibly can that allows me the opportunity, but they're just doing what pigs do. Anything that needs to be killed deserves to be killed quickly....except child molesters.

[DRT]

The far bigger issue that most have no clue on is this.... Say Joe gets popped by local LEO for animal cruelty (fill in whatever example you want). The local LEO knows it was minor and he gets a minor ticket by the local judge (knowing it was small thing)



A few weeks later FEDs show up and bust Joe on Federal charges. Cities are forced to turn in crimes to FEDs. They have zero mercy and Joe is screwed up for pretty much life now and on parole etc...



I'm sure some high and mighty TBHers will say to not break any laws and you have nothing to worry about LOL These people have obviously never dealt with FEDs.

If this had any realistic probability to it then there would be concern for the average pet cruelty violator. However it's a felony to lie on a firearm purchase application and that is never followed up on by the feds so I'd say odds are slim your scenario comes up except in some high profile cases.

Gary