Is Protesting Legal-- When Not done at Large shopping Mall? Can "selling" be animal abuse?
As can be seen by the photo, protesters like to pose for camera to further their efforts against the sales of animals. In this case, the protesters claim that Mr. Salinas is an "animal abuser" because he has a pet store that sells puppies. Is that defamation? Probably so. The statute of limitations is only one year in CA on defamation, but had Mr. Salinas asserted his claim on defamation, he would have likely prevailed. But in the Salinas case, much of the case law indicates, post Pruneyard, that protesting in a retail strip mall set up which is NOT large, as described in numerous cases-- does not have the same application as a huge shopping mall which contains movie theatres, restaurants and food courts, lounging and relaxation areas, many benches and other offerings--not found in small strip malls. Attorneys for the activists try and distort this fact, but essentially one cannot break the law and engage in battering employees, surveilling, and basically stalking the pet store employees, following owner to Church, etc.
For clarification, there is no legal definition of the claim of puppymill, as USDA Federally sanctioned commercial kennels under APHIS have long been legal. It is basically the kennels that are not in compliance [probably never even registered] that creates the emotional brainwashing seen in the photos. In other words, because not every kennel owner takes care of their animals perfectly, the protesters want everyone to believe that ALL commercial kennels or breeders are ALL bad, or are all criminals.
Anyone who has ever been to an animal shelter will realize, there is far more to this than meets the eye. Pretty much, protesters are trying to force everyone into only BUYING (they call it adopting) a rehomed or shelter animal, and NOT buying it from a store, or a person, or another source, and especially not from another country. Many cities now, have actually outlawed the SELLING of an animal which is NOT obtained from a shelter, humane society, or animal non profit!!! In particular, the laws state that no commercial entity can sell such an animal; therefore, if that entity is selling an animal, it must be obtained from one of the named sources. In other words, there are not going to be cute puppies to buy, because 99.9% of rehomed animals are not puppies. To be clear, attorney knows a vast amount of facts in this area, and if one is inclined to obtain a dog or puppy for the kids, seek out a breeder who is reasonable and breeds for temperament and health. We are not necessarily all looking to buy a 'show dog.' Shelter dogs for novice owners are not recommended. It can be common for 50% or more of shelter animals to be returned to shelter in fist 6 months.
CA Penal Code 597, 597.1 et seq.
which covers animal negligence/abuse, is one of the largest animal abuse-related statutes in the entire United States. However, as far as we know, there is no animal abuse for selling an animal 'outside' in California, except under PC 597.4, which the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) got passed. And by the way, do NOT donate to HSUS. After a 14 year case in Federal Court, many of the animal rights groups paid out MILLIONS ($9.5m and $15m) to the Barnum and Bailey Circus entity after falsely putting up a paid Plaintiff. These activist groups were civilly charged with RICO charges, which means RACKETEERING. See http://www.humanewatch.org if you want to truly understand how the activists are simply using animals as a way of money mongering the public.
There are exceptions, but for the most part, if you intend to transfer or sell or rehome or display an animal which is covered under the law, and you are physically outside, or in a parking lot (even if you own the parking lot) or a public thoroughfare or park, or you meet the new buyer at a public place in general, you could be cited under this criminal statute for malicious mischief (criminal) which is where most of the animal abuse laws are consolidated in the CA Penal Code, but NOT if you are an exempted "non profit." Several years later, after several failed attempts, the law later exempted pet stores. It would appear that the "exemption" of being a non profit means you are exempted from animal abuse, but of course, that is absurd since plenty of shelters/rescues have been charged with animal abuse.
In other words, the alleged animal abuse does not require one to be abusing any animal, but just simply showing or displaying it for sale? It should be noted, certain entities like 4H and certain dog/cat/bird shows, and pet stores in California are now exempt from this law, even though they are not non profits.
As can be seen by the photo, protesters like to pose for camera to further their efforts against the sales of animals. In this case, the protesters claim that Mr. Salinas is an "animal abuser" because he has a pet store that sells puppies. Is that defamation? Probably so. The statute of limitations is only one year in CA on defamation, but had Mr. Salinas asserted his claim on defamation, he would have likely prevailed. But in the Salinas case, much of the case law indicates, post Pruneyard, that protesting in a retail strip mall set up which is NOT large, as described in numerous cases-- does not have the same application as a huge shopping mall which contains movie theatres, restaurants and food courts, lounging and relaxation areas, many benches and other offerings--not found in small strip malls. Attorneys for the activists try and distort this fact, but essentially one cannot break the law and engage in battering employees, surveilling, and basically stalking the pet store employees, following owner to Church, etc.
For clarification, there is no legal definition of the claim of puppymill, as USDA Federally sanctioned commercial kennels under APHIS have long been legal. It is basically the kennels that are not in compliance [probably never even registered] that creates the emotional brainwashing seen in the photos. In other words, because not every kennel owner takes care of their animals perfectly, the protesters want everyone to believe that ALL commercial kennels or breeders are ALL bad, or are all criminals.
Anyone who has ever been to an animal shelter will realize, there is far more to this than meets the eye. Pretty much, protesters are trying to force everyone into only BUYING (they call it adopting) a rehomed or shelter animal, and NOT buying it from a store, or a person, or another source, and especially not from another country. Many cities now, have actually outlawed the SELLING of an animal which is NOT obtained from a shelter, humane society, or animal non profit!!! In particular, the laws state that no commercial entity can sell such an animal; therefore, if that entity is selling an animal, it must be obtained from one of the named sources. In other words, there are not going to be cute puppies to buy, because 99.9% of rehomed animals are not puppies. To be clear, attorney knows a vast amount of facts in this area, and if one is inclined to obtain a dog or puppy for the kids, seek out a breeder who is reasonable and breeds for temperament and health. We are not necessarily all looking to buy a 'show dog.' Shelter dogs for novice owners are not recommended. It can be common for 50% or more of shelter animals to be returned to shelter in fist 6 months.
CA Penal Code 597, 597.1 et seq.
which covers animal negligence/abuse, is one of the largest animal abuse-related statutes in the entire United States. However, as far as we know, there is no animal abuse for selling an animal 'outside' in California, except under PC 597.4, which the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) got passed. And by the way, do NOT donate to HSUS. After a 14 year case in Federal Court, many of the animal rights groups paid out MILLIONS ($9.5m and $15m) to the Barnum and Bailey Circus entity after falsely putting up a paid Plaintiff. These activist groups were civilly charged with RICO charges, which means RACKETEERING. See http://www.humanewatch.org if you want to truly understand how the activists are simply using animals as a way of money mongering the public.
There are exceptions, but for the most part, if you intend to transfer or sell or rehome or display an animal which is covered under the law, and you are physically outside, or in a parking lot (even if you own the parking lot) or a public thoroughfare or park, or you meet the new buyer at a public place in general, you could be cited under this criminal statute for malicious mischief (criminal) which is where most of the animal abuse laws are consolidated in the CA Penal Code, but NOT if you are an exempted "non profit." Several years later, after several failed attempts, the law later exempted pet stores. It would appear that the "exemption" of being a non profit means you are exempted from animal abuse, but of course, that is absurd since plenty of shelters/rescues have been charged with animal abuse.
In other words, the alleged animal abuse does not require one to be abusing any animal, but just simply showing or displaying it for sale? It should be noted, certain entities like 4H and certain dog/cat/bird shows, and pet stores in California are now exempt from this law, even though they are not non profits.
