NYS seeks to criminalize reptile ownership

[Roadtrash]

New York is getting a little crazy lately. First you can't get a large drink anymore then they go into all this gun nonsense they just passed and now they want to get rid of reptiles.

There are a lot of good people in New York but all the crazy ones seem to be in charge, what gives with that?

If they keep on the way this thing reads they might be banning a lot of dogs as well cause some do bite. And I guess they'll have to do away with cows cause they might get after you too. What about chickens, you ever have a rooster flog you? And I hate to get started on those man eating goldfish.

I guess I better stop i seem to be wandering.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by Roadtrash

New York is getting a little crazy lately. First you can't get a large drink anymore then they go into all this gun nonsense they just passed and now they want to get rid of reptiles.

There are a lot of good people in New York but all the crazy ones seem to be in charge, what gives with that?

If they keep on the way this thing reads they might be banning a lot of dogs as well cause some do bite. And I guess they'll have to do away with cows cause they might get after you too. What about chickens, you ever have a rooster flog you? And I hate to get started on those man eating goldfish.

I guess I better stop i seem to be wandering.

It actually makes a point to not include domestic animals so your hyperbole is uncalled for.

Use some actual knowledge and form a solid response. This kind of response will only further them to outright banning everything.

[Falconeer999]

Little more digging - if you look at the part where it references the environmental conservation law, it appears this is the list of reptiles they are referring to:

(5) All reptiles that are venomous by nature, pursuant to department
regulation, and the following species and orders: Burmese Python (Python
m. bivittatus), Reticulated Python (Python reticulatus), African Rock
Python (Python sabae), Green Anaconda (Eunectes maurinus), Yellow
Anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), Australian Amethystine Python (Morelia
amethistina and Morelia kinghorni), Indian Python (Python molurus),
Asiatic (water) Monitor (Varanus salvator), Nile Monitor (Varanus
nilocitus), White Throat Monitor (Varanus albigularis), Black Throat
Monitor (Varanus albigularis ionides) and Crocodile Monitor (Varanus
salvadori), Komodo Dragon (Varanus komodensis) and any hybrid thereof,
(6) Crocodylia.

[infernalis]

OK, so I am no legal eagle here, my Savannah Monitors are in no danger of being taken away from me?

[blindfireak40]

Originally Posted by Falconeer999

Little more digging - if you look at the part where it references the environmental conservation law, it appears this is the list of reptiles they are referring to:

Once again, it appears so, but it is important to notice that the text of the law makes illegal all wild animals AND reptiles, whereas the list that you just quoted is found as a subset of "wild animals" (i.e. 11-0103 Section E item 5). This insinuates to me that the ban is more universal than that list indicates, as the blanket term "reptile" is included. If they only wanted to ban that list of species, they would have said "wild animals as defined by blah blah blah...", not "Wild animals AND reptiles".

I cannot understate how ridiculous this law is, and it says exactly what we've been saying it says.

[Falconeer999]

The law is poorly worded (as many are). It says "wild animal or reptile" then it says "wild animal is defined as" X. Within that definition for X is a list of reptiles. I could make an argument that the definition is supposed to act as a definitive list. A prosecutor would argue that any reptile that is capable of causing "bodily harm" (which has no legal definition - it can be anything as minor as a scratch or someone saying "ow"), is banned under the law.

Note - I went to law school, but not a licensed attorney.

[Falconeer999]

Originally Posted by blindfireak40

Once again, it appears so, but it is important to notice that the text of the law makes illegal all wild animals AND reptiles, whereas the list that you just quoted is found as a subset of "wild animals" (i.e. 11-0103 Section E item 5). This insinuates to me that the ban is more universal than that list indicates, as the blanket term "reptile" is included. If they only wanted to ban that list of species, they would have said "wild animals as defined by blah blah blah...", not "Wild animals AND reptiles".

I cannot understate how ridiculous this law is, and it says exactly what we've been saying it says.

See my post below yours where I talk about that.

[infernalis]

My post must have been written with invisible text.....

[Gungirl]

I hope you are not going to have to fight to keep them Wayne.. this is such crap!

[Falconeer999]

Originally Posted by infernalis

My post must have been written with invisible text.....

Mine was kind of in response to yours about your monitors. I would say it can go either way as it currently reads, but tipping more towards them being illegal because of the way they say "wild animals are defined as" instead of "wild animals and reptiles are defined as". I believe the original post said it had gone through a first reading - hopefully it will be tweaked some before the final reading and it will be better worded.

[infernalis]

Originally Posted by Gungirl

I hope you are not going to have to fight to keep them Wayne.. this is such crap!

I will move away first Kat.

They are my everything (just below my family)

You can appreciate this....

We have a new law that requires a full background check just to purchase a box of shotgun shells

They also impose a 3 box limit per purchase (at least the local wal marts do)

People are buying up reloading equipment like crazy here.

We laso have a 7 round clip limit, get caught with a gun that holds more than 7 rounds of ammo at once and you are a crimminal.

So I guess those $100 marlin .22 semi autos are considered illegal to own now.

such crap.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by infernalis

OK, so I am no legal eagle here, my Savannah Monitors are in no danger of being taken away from me?

Already been addressed but I'd like to point out if there's a chance that the public can attend any meeting and actually say something then I highly recommend you do so.

I'd quote the legal findings of Toronto.

[dinosaurdammit]

Originally Posted by infernalis

I will move away first Kat.

They are my everything (just below my family)

You can appreciate this....

We have a new law that requires a full background check just to purchase a box of shotgun shells

They also impose a 3 box limit per purchase (at least the local wal marts do)

People are buying up reloading equipment like crazy here.

We laso have a 7 round clip limit, get caught with a gun that holds more than 7 rounds of ammo at once and you are a crimminal.

So I guess those $100 marlin .22 semi autos are considered illegal to own now.

such crap.

soon you will have to fill out permission forms to just take a dump in your own house. Hope you dont have to move, this is just all a bunch of bullocks.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by Gungirl

I hope you are not going to have to fight to keep them Wayne.. this is such crap!

Wait...we shouldn't have to fight to keep our animals? The world should just allows us whatever we want? Dangerous or not?

I stand by what I said. If this comes up anywhere else then show up in person if this really bothers you and that you enjoy where you live. Make a stand. It's not difficult to do. I'd do it for you but the problem is they don't care about me since I live in Canada.

[Gungirl]

Aaron I believe in freedom.. something that is hard to come by now.