Mississippi Canine Coalition, Inc.
ph: 1-800-485-0981
info
Legislation
UPDATE: MISSISSIPPI SB 2623 and SB 3085 were defeated in committee. Thank you to all who wrote to your legislators regarding your concerns with these bills.
Previous updates:
OPPOSE MISSISSIPPI SB 2623 and SB 3085
***PERMISSION TO FORWARD AND CROSSPOST ***
Mississippi SB 2623 a bill to establish laws against the cruelty of any vertebrate animal and felony animal cruelty against owners of dogs and cats, was amended and passed by the Senate on February 4, 2010. A second felony animal cruelty bill, SB 3085, identical to SB 2623 except for two major provisions, was passed by the Senate on February 11. Both bills have been transmitted to the House and double referred to Agriculture; Judiciary B.
The text of SB 2623 as passed by the Senate may be found at http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2010/pdf/SB/2600-2699/SB2623PS.pdf
and SB 3085 as passed by the Senate may be found at http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2010/pdf/SB/3000-3099/SB3085PS.pdf .
While we support the intent of the Senate in attempting to resolve the problem of our having virtually no animal cruelty law in the state since the Mississippi Supreme Court decision in Davis v Mississippi declared Section 97-41-1 unconstitutional, SB 2623 is definitely not the right bill to solve the problem. It does nothing to address the constitutional and civil rights violations found in Section 97-41-2 (seizure of animals) that includes violations of the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments. It is full of vague language and has provisions that would undoubtedly render this animal cruelty law as unconstitutional as our last one. While it appears the Senate attempted to address our concern regarding vague language, the definitions are not adequate and are even more vague than the words they are intended to define. There was no attempt at all to define several of the most vague terms. Some of the exemptions meant to protect specific animal interest groups are badly written and, hopefully, not intended as written. They not only do not adequately protect those meant to be protected, but the language in several exemptions causes even more concerns for us.
We are not sure why the Senate decided to pass a second felony animal cruelty bill on the deadline day, but we appreciate the fact that it appears there was an attempt to address another of our major concerns. SB 3085 amends current Section 97-41-2 (seizure of animals) by omitting the requirement for the animal owner to post a bond in order to get a hearing before the government takes his animals based only on an allegation, a clear violation of due process and obvious discrimination against the poor. While this is certainly an important step forward, this is not the only constitutional issue regarding enforcement of animal cruelty law in this statute that must be addressed.
The first major difference between SB 2623 and SB 3085 is the deletion of the seizure bond requirement. The other major difference between SB 2623 and SB 3085 is that the felony would kick in on the second offense rather than the first. With the growing animal rights movement in this state and the threat it poses to legitimate animal interests whether they are dog owners/breeders, horse owners/breeders, farmers, hunters, and others, a second offense felony is probably a good idea. While our emotions would dictate a first offense felony, common sense and reality say otherwise.
While we would have vigorously supported a well written animal cruelty bill that did not include unintended consequences, the Mississippi Canine Coalition, Inc. OPPOSES both SB 2623 and SB 3085. Neither of these bills is law that both protects animals and ensures the constitutional and civil rights of their owners. Imposing a felony on a citizen of this state is a serious act that has lifelong consequences. The language in these bills would make potential criminals out of half the animal owners in this state. At this point in the legislative process, there is not time to fix these flawed bills. Passing bad animal laws are bad for the animals, bad for their owners, and bad for the taxpayers of this state. Civil rights lawsuits are expensive and judgements can be substantial. We believe that no law is better than bad law. Both animal cruelty bills passed by the Senate are bad law.
Please study both bills for yourself and make your own decision. If you too oppose the bills, you should immediately contact every representative you can starting with the chair and members of the House Agriculture committee, then the chair and members of the Judiciary B committee and your own representative if he/she is not on either of these committees. Then move on to the remainder of the House members. A full roster of House of Representative members with their contact info can be found
at: http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/members/h_roster.pdf .
Contacts must be made now. The deadline for bills to be passed out of committee is this coming Tuesday, March 2. You should phone if possible and/or send email messages. Faxed letters would be better than emails if you have the time. For representatives who do not have offices at the capitol, you may call (601) 359-3770 and leave a message. Be sure to leave the message to OPPOSE these bills with your name, phone number, and county so that the representative will know what you wanted even if he/she does not have time to get back to you before the bills are considered in committee.
If you have questions or need more information, contact lindachance@mississippi-canine-coalition.org .
House Agriculture Committee
Rep. Greg Ward, Chairman
(601) 359-3332
Dr. Joe C. Gardner, Vice-Chairman
(601) 359-3351
Rep. Brian Aldridge
(601) 359-3373
Rep. Tracy Arinder
(601) 359-2419
Rep. Larry Baker
(601) 359-3770
Rep. Larry Byrd
(601) 359-3352
Rep. Tad Campbell
(601) 359-3770
Rep. Blaine Eaton
(601) 359-3334
Rep. Chuck Espy
(601) 359-2421
Rep. Harvey Fillingane
(601) 359-3770
Rep. David Gibbs
(601) 359-3337
Rep. Andy Gipson
(601) 359-9488
Rep. Frank Hamilton
(601) 359-2429
Rep. Gregory Holloway
(601) 359-5334
Rep. Bobby B. Howell
(601) 359-3770
Dr. Mac Huddleston
(601) 359-9492
Rep. Robert E. Huddleston
(601) 359-3363
Rep. Sherra Hillman Lane
(601) 359-2861
Rep. W. T. Mayhall, Jr.
(601) 359-3770
Rep.
America"Chuck" Middleton
(601) 359-9392
Rep. John L. Moore
(601) 359-3311
Rep. Ken Morgan
(601) 359-3770
Rep. Billy Nicholson
(601) 359-4082
Rep. David Norquist
(601) 359-3343
Rep. Deryk R. Parker
(601) 359-9486
Rep. Bill Pigott
(601) 359-9489
Rep. Dannie Reed
(601) 359-3770
Rep. Bobby Shows
(601) 359-3338
Rep. Ferr Smith
(601) 359-9391
Rep. Gary V. Staples
(601) 359-3770
Rep.
PrestonE. Sullivan
(601) 359-3340
Rep. Jerry R. Turner
(601) 359-3770
Rep. Linda Whittington
(601) 359-2845
House Judiciary B Committee
Rep. Willie Bailey, Chairman
(601) 359-1541
Rep. Bob Evans, Vice-Chairman
(601) 359-9393
Rep. Noal Akins
(601) 359-3770
Rep. Sidney Bondurant
(601) 359-3770
Rep. Cecil Brown
(601) 359-3330
Rep. Kimberly Campbell Buck
(601) 359-2418
Rep. Clara Burnett
(601) 359-2422
Rep. Alyce G. Clarke
(601) 359-3096
Rep. Mark DuVall
(601) 359-4073
Rep. Jim Ellington
(601) 359-2430
Rep. Harvey Fillingane
(601) 359-3770
Rep. Frances Fredericks
(601) 359-9466
Dr. Joe C. Gardner
(601) 359-3351
Rep. Brandon Jones
(601) 359-3354
Rep. Sherra Hillman Lane
(601) 359-2861
Rep. W. T. Mayhall, Jr.
(601) 359-3770
Rep. John Mayo
(601) 359-3321
Rep. Warner F. McBride
(601) 359-3355
Rep. Sam C. Mims V
(601) 359-2430
Rep. Alex Monsour
(601) 359-3770
Rep. John L. Moore
(601) 359-3311
Rep. Willie J. Perkins, Sr.
(601) 359-3014
Rep. Ferr Smith
(601) 359-9391
Rep. Jeffrey C. Smith
(601) 359-3770
Rep. Adrienne Wooten
(601) 359-2420
PREVIOUS ALERT:
The Mississippi Canine Coalition, Inc. has the following concerns regarding SB 2623:
**SB 2623 is full of vague language, including but not limited to "torment", "sustenance", "mutilate", "torture", "maim", and "disfigure". The words are not defined in this bill nor in current state law. Animal owners know from experience that animal rightists (and yes, we have them right here in Mississippi and obviously in our legislature) are adept at using these terms to mean whatever it takes to seize animals and charge innocent people with crimes. To impose a misdemeanor or felony offense on Mississippians using this language with no definitions so that one will even know they are committing a crime is outrageous. Canine practices such as humane tail docking and ear cropping should be specifically exempt as an accepted animal husbandry practice before some animal rightist decides they are "torture", "mutilating", "maiming" or "disfiguring".
**By use of the word "shall" rather than "may" in Sections 1 and 2, the bill completely takes away the discretion of the court when it is the court only that has full possession of all the facts and is in the best position to administer justice.
**The provision whereby the court may require the forfeiture of any future right to own or care for any animal for a period which the court deems appropriate is unconstitutional. A sentence for a crime (including the prohibition on owning animals) cannot be longer than the legislatively established statutory maximum for the crime. To exceed that is a taking (of a property right) without due process in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
**This bill states that the court may also require periodic unannounced visits for a period up to one (1) year by a "humane officer" to inspect the care and condition of any animal...... There is no such thing in Mississippi law as a "humane officer". One could easily interpret this to be an agent of a humane society (which is nothing but a non profit organization with nothing to ensure that anyone involved knows anything about animal husbandry) or even an employee of the Humane Society of the United States that is the enemy of every farmer, hunter, dog and cat breeder, medical researcher, and other legitimate animal owner in the state. Do you really want to allow the fox in the hen house?
**The exemption of "accepted dog handling and training practices" is virtually useless without definition. There is no one body of experts that prescribes what is and is not "accepted dog handling and training practices". In fact, there is a great deal of controversy within the dog world about various handling and training issues.
** Hunters with dogs should be wary of depending on the exemption designed to prevent them from opposing this bill. "Any and all activities associated with or incidental to the lawful hunting or trapping of wildlife" probably will not include the care of and training of hunting dogs. What better way for an animal rights organization to stop hunting (one of their major goals) than to charge dog owners with animal cruelty under the vague language in this bill?
**As mentioned above, this bill does absolutely nothing to repeal or amend Section 97-41-2 in our current law. This statute allows seizure of dogs, cats, horses, and exotics based upon nothing but an allegation of being in possession of a debilitated dog, cat, horse or exotic. The seizure is not even linked to the commission of a crime and charges are often never even filed in the case. To even get a hearing, the accused has to post a bond of an amount not even specified in the law. One cannot have a more obvious 5th and 14th Amendment violation than that. In addition, the statute attempts to legislate probable cause and does it badly thus allowing for 4th Amendment violations. No matter how well the legislature writes an animal cruelty bill for Mississippi, doing it without addressing the civil rights violations in Section 97-41-2 sets the stage for a major 1983 civil rights violations lawsuit that will make Mississippi taxpayers very unhappy.
If you have questions or need more information, contact lindachance@mississippi-canine-coalition.org .
"You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."
Lyndon B. Johnson
Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their libery by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
Mississippi Legislature
Regular Session, 2010
Tuesday, 1/5/10 - Saturday, 4/3/10
Mississippi Legislature Home Page
Copyright Mississippi Canine Coalition, Inc. All rights reserved.
ph: 1-800-485-0981
info
