AB1634 and the Fourth Amendment

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 11:14 am 1 comment

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States of America:” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” 

The opinions expressed below are done with the expressed power afforded citizens in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States of America.     

California Assembly Bill 1634 is an assault upon 15,000 years of human history, 231 years of American History and 157 years of
California history. During these years the owners of dogs and cats have had all the responsibility and privileges of managing their pets, companions, hunting partners, sentries and working animals lives. Now this bill deems these people insufficient to make and employ their own decisions regarding their own animals. The replacement for owner responsibility is a law by an ignorant non-animal owning lawmaker spurred on by a non-taxpaying organization bent on removing animal ownership as a right of American Citizens. In this law, the power of enforcement is given to non-elected agencies of local government who are not prevented from creating and enforcing even a more stringent law to accomplish the same purpose.  

In fact, Article 2, section122336.1 of AB1634 (proposed) establishes a civil penalty of $500.00 for violation and specifically states “this penalty shall be imposed in addition to any other civil or CRIMINAL penalties imposed by the local jurisdiction”. This clearly encourages local jurisdictions to enact more stringent laws, especially including criminal designations, for the purpose of additive punishment, perhaps imprisonment, and larger monetary fines. 

Our Fourth Amendment rights come into play in the violation of our right to feel secure in our houses and effects (dogs and cats), secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of those same dogs and cats, when all those years of history and tradition are violated by AB1634. Is it to be deemed reasonable to breech the security and privacy of homes to search for and seize pet animals whose gonads remain intact within their bodies, despite the fact that those very organs are unused for the primary purpose of reproduction? Does mere possession or the thought that such a possession of said animal inspire judges to issue warrants to invade hearth and home and snatch innocent animals from the owner in order for the state to steal their function from the animal and owner alike? Does living in the fear of such occurrence itself violate the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? Such fear alone may certainly eliminate the ability to feel secure in both persons and houses. 

Fortunately, courts have held that even an unauthorized look over a backyard fence, in the absence of a duly authorized warrant, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Your house extends to your yard. But does this mean that effectively your intact animals, who may not be duly permitted, licensed or otherwise legalized are effectively under “house arrest” for their entire lives? And would you feel secure inyour house under such conditions?

Would some judge consider that suspiscion of harboring such an antisocial animal be adequate to issue a warrant for invading your domicile to seize such an abhorrent creature? Not under most current circumstances, as it is difficult enough for police to get warrants for really criminal acts in enforcing laws to protect us from really dangerous felons. But the meaning of enforcement changes over time, and judges sometimes have their own ideas of protecting the public. Can you always feel secure in your homes with this law in place?

AB1634 is a travesty against human history for as long as man has been peacefully coexisting with and in a symbiotic relationship with dogs, at least for the last 15,000 years. It must be prevented from becoming law, and consuming the domestic tranquility of the State of California.

Entry filed under: Uncategorized.

Do Not Believe Everything You Hear! Dog Food, What About it?

1 Comment Add your own

  • 1. Kuben  |  Friday, September 21, 2007 at 7:17 am


    Just wanted to drop you a quick note to say thank you for a great resource.There is nothing else like your site on the net today. My friends are just going to love this site once I let them know about it.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Add to Technorati Favorites

Add to Technorati Favorites

Event Calendar

May 2007
« Apr   Jun »


Recent Posts

Flickr Photos

%d bloggers like this: