HR669 is Illegal according to the US Constitution

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Ex post facto

ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD

In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:

"1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."

So according to that those people who were involved in an action before the law passes aren't to be punished.

Unfortunatly the wording of that means that you will not be criminally prosecuted for owning a snake in 2009 if this law comes into effect in 2010. It means there are no retroactive criminal charges that can be filed.

It does not let you keep performing an action after it is made illegal.

See the way I read it if you were in possission of the animal prior to the law they can't prosecute you for the owning part.

I have to agree with main butter.

Because, after the law were to be passed, your still criminally breaking it by continuing to own the animal. If, perhaps, you had a python in 2008, but not after the law was enacted, then you cant be punished because you had it when it was legal.

It also doesn't mean they still can't take the animals away. Sure you won't be charged but they can still confiscate them.

I guess you guys have apoint..Just grabbing at straws.. LOL

That line in the constitution prevents the following from happening:

Owning retics is legal today. Next week it is illegal. You get rid of your snake tomorrow, but they still put you in jail because you own it today(even though according to the law today, you are allowed to).

Don't feel too disappointed though, KEEP LOOKING FOR LEGAL LOOPHOLES! I don't think any exist but we never know.

An imagined conversation should 660 pass:

Why yes Mr. Freaky, we completely understand your not wanting to be prosecuted for having these snakes. We totally understand that when you got them they were absolutely legal for you to have. There is no question about that, you are not a law breaker. Why, our very presence here proves that now, doesn't it?

We've had lots of people that thought just like you did, that they could keep their snakes and dogs and cats and canaries, and really if it was up to me I'd tell you to keep them and enjoy but, unfortunately for you, it's not up to me so let's just continue on. Shall we.

Oh, that's a nice one there. A banana ball you say, wow, gorgeous. Oh come now, no snake is worth that much. Really? 2 of them and orders for more? I could not have ever imagined so much money in snakes. Used to catch em when I was a kid, garter snakes mostly. Stinky buggers. A damn shame these will all have to be destroyed. You'd think they'd at least adopt them out but they have some Zero tolerance thing and since no one is supposed to have any, no one gets to have any.

Didn't you guys try to stop this? Ahhh, yeah, that small voice thing is rough. Especially when you've got deep pockets like PETA in the other corner. You know, I heard the broad who runs it is only alive today because of tests done on animals. Kinda two-faced, don't you think? Yeah, me too.

Ok, I guess that's the last of them. You'd think 32 snakes would weigh more but I guess they are kinda small compared to some. We picked up a Burmese, a beautiful brown and yellow and black one a couple of weeks ago, weighted 187 lbs. Some poor guy had raised it up from a baby, 14 years, and now she's gone. That was sad. It's tough to see a grown man cry.

Well, hopefully I won't be seeing you again. There was a guy coupla counties over tried to hide some of his lizards from pick up and I hear he's doing time now. Better to have just given them up when he was supposed to, don't you think? Yup, me too, why risk it?

Good luck and really, sorry to have to do this, but it's my job.

Wouldn't they let you keep any that you had prior to it being enacted into law? I thought I read in the bill's text that any animals you already had would be ok? Are they really going to take them away if this passes?

Well they would have to pull them from my cold dead fingers before they ever get my babies. My ferrets and snakes are my children. Tonight I will be writing an email!

Here is what gets me. Say this passes and my BP's and geckos are illegal. I'm no longer allowed to own any "non-native" or "invasive" species anymore. However I live in Alabama. And there are no regulations concerning the buying, selling or release of native venomous snakes. Now where is the logic in that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cenobite74

Here is what gets me. Say this passes and my BP's and geckos are illegal. I'm no longer allowed to own any "non-native" or "invasive" species anymore. However I live in Alabama. And there are no regulations concerning the buying, selling or release of native venomous snakes. Now where is the logic in that?

---

In Georgia you can't sell native species and you can't keep non-venomous native species but I can keep a copperhead if I want, without a permit at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cenobite74

Here is what gets me. Say this passes and my BP's and geckos are illegal. I'm no longer allowed to own any "non-native" or "invasive" species anymore. However I live in Alabama. And there are no regulations concerning the buying, selling or release of native venomous snakes. Now where is the logic in that?

---

This bill isn't about protecting people(for the most part), it's about protecting the environment. Releasing a native venomous snake into Alabama isn't going to hurt the environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AaronP

In Georgia you can't sell native species and you can't keep non-venomous native species but I can keep a copperhead if I want, without a permit at that.

---

Georgia has odd captives laws that I don't understand the purpose of.

nobody said the gov't was filled with brainiacs!!!! I just hope that our "voice" is/was loud enough to be heard to make a dent in the heads of some of the knuckle heads trying to "rule" this country.

I was talking to the lady that ownes the pet store in Marksville,La. She had tgve up a marmaset (sp?) monkey that she owned for years when La. passed amaking it illegal to own a primate. She said it was so sad for her. The little monkey was adopted out of state. So there is no doubt in my mind that this bill can actually pass also. I have a hamster, tons of fish, and my snakes that I do not want to part with. Monday in school I am going to talk to my class about HR669. I am hoping to get a massive amount of emails out before Tuesday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

Georgia has odd captives laws that I don't understand the purpose of.

---

Georgia's a very spiteful state.

I hate the HR669 bill but i have read up on it. The best way to attack something is to to know all about what you are attacking, and the bill does stat however that any animal in your possession before the bill is passed is ok, but transporting between stats will be a nono

BOOOO ON HR669

to think that the purpose of this bill is to protect the welfare of "wild" animals and the "native" lands of the united states is completely crazy.

the animals that are collected in the wild for the pet trade, would either be eaten or collected for some other trade such as skins. like it or not, this is how it is with other cultures.

as far as protecting the native lands in the united states, Give me a break. if you believe this you are drinking kool aid. If this was the case, cats would've been outlawed many years ago. They are the most invasive and destructive animal alive...next to humans.

These government people could care less about protecting native habitat of animals, most especially snakes.

I find it rather odd that in states where it's illegal to collect or own native snakes it's perfectly ok to kill them all day long.

As far as environmental impact on a snakes and other herps, what is the difference between killing a snake and collecting it to keep? The difference is killing is legal.

i believe in the bill of rights it talks about the pursuit of happiness. if one can properly care for a snake and this is their passion, then it is their american right to keep whatever species they like.

I only keep one snake currently, but i am not ready to give up my right to keep 100 if i choose.

If we are allowed to keep our current pets how will we feed them? If rats and mice end up on that list then what? Manufacturers, distrubutors, and many others will be out of work not to mention all the breeders of these various animals. Its silly and has so many deep unthought out consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redpython

as far as protecting the native lands in the united states, Give me a break. if you believe this you are drinking kool aid. If this was the case, cats would've been outlawed many years ago. They are the most invasive and destructive animal alive...next to humans.

---

There ARE a number of very serious invasive species that threaten entire regions of wildlife.

Asian carp are going to destroy our rivers, especially if they continue their march to the great lakes and the mississippi. The common carp isn't good to have either, but their presence isn't 1/10th as bad as what happens as soon as asian carp move in.

The problem is that this species will not be affected at all by the passing of this bill. People are already aware of the problem, there are already actions and legislation at the state level controlling them, and they are already established in our waters.

One of the problems I have with this bill is that it really isn't going to protect native US land and wildlife from invasive species like it intends to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ivylea77

If we are allowed to keep our current pets how will we feed them? If rats and mice end up on that list then what? Manufacturers, distrubutors, and many others will be out of work not to mention all the breeders of these various animals. Its silly and has so many deep unthought out consequences.

---

Mice and rats are native.

I understand that, but as someone stated before, this "list" and law is open to many changes and interpertations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

Mice and rats are native.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

Mice and rats are native.

---

NOPE. Rats (norway and roof) are both invasive. Brought by ships across the atlantic many many centuries ago.

Not only that but I don't remember seeing them on the list of exempt speices..So rats and mice are up there too.. By By feeders

Quote:

---

does not include any cat (Felis catus),
8 cattle or oxen (Bos taurus), chicken (Gallus
9 gallus domesticus), dog (Canis lupus familiaris),
10 donkey or ass (Equus asinus), domesticated
11 members of the family Anatidae (geese), duck
12 (domesticated Anas spp.), goat (Capra aegagrus
13 hircus), goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus),
14 horse (Equus caballus), llama (Lama glama),
15 mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus), pig
16 or hog (Sus scrofa domestica), domesticated va17
rieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), or
18 sheep (Ovis aries), or any other species or vari19
ety of species that is determined by the Sec20
retary to be common and clearly domesticated.

---

This is the worrysome part..

Quote:

---

(4) NATIVE SPECIES.—The term ‘‘native species’’ means a species that historically occurred or currently occurs in the United States, other than as
a result of an intentional or unintentional introduction by humans.

---

That means at any time horses, dogs, cats, most anything other than native animals (which are illegal to possess in most states anyway) can be added as non-native as a result of the Secutarys approval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleindiangirl

NOPE. Rats (norway and roof) are both invasive. Brought by ships across the atlantic many many centuries ago.

---

Even though both those rats are not native both of them are now consider indegiouns to almost all of America, so even if this joke pass's we will still be able to feed our snakes. There is a specific species of Rat that they will never be able to ban, do to big agencies like the EPA FDA and a few others use for testing. I need to find my notes to found out what one it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vandalism

Even though both those rats are not native both of them are now consider indegiouns to almost all of America, so even if this joke pass's we will still be able to feed our snakes. There is a specific species of Rat that they will never be able to ban, do to big agencies like the EPA FDA and a few others use for testing. I need to find my notes to found out what one it is.

---

They are not indigenous, that is not at all the correct terminology to even apply to an animal that has only been around for a couple hundred years. Where in the world did you get that idea?

ok found it...well some of it. Black rats (Rattus rattus) and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), which helped make Sprague-Dawley, Wistar rat,Long-Evans rat, Zucker rat,Hairless rats strain, and the RCS rats. You Know Where would have to freez over before they out law any of those. All these rats are a HUGE role in how/what we use for medicine or lab testing, few ppl keep them as pets. As for a the common rat or ones we like to feed are snake are called the Fancy Rat which is consider a domesticated Rattus norvegicus. With that being said there is no worry if 669 some how gets passed there is no worrys of snakes going hungry.

This bill would fly out the window if they wanted to try to eradicate the common rat, it would cost us Billions of dolloars


Here is a link to a web site that scratchs on species, strains, breeds and varieties
http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatSpecies.htm

Alot of the people in power think the Constitution is nothing more the toilet paper to wipe their butt with. It's sad when we have to fight over what pets we keep. I can understand hots to an extent but Ball pytons, birds, some fish and etc wtf are they thinking.

Well to see just how stupid this whole thing is all you have to do is look at the sponsor and co-sponsors.

Sponsor.
Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU]

Co-sponsors

Rep. Grace Napolitano [D-CA]
Del. Eni Faleomavaega [D-AS]
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Ronald Kind [D-WI]
Rep. Dale Kildee [D-MI]
Rep. Ron Klein [D-FL]
Rep. George Miller [D-CA]

One moderate dem, the rest are far left and rank and file.

Not a lick of sense among any of them.

In answer to Wizzy's question. They want to be able to control every aspect of your lives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vandalism

ok found it...well some of it. Black rats (Rattus rattus) and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), which helped make Sprague-Dawley, Wistar rat,Long-Evans rat, Zucker rat,Hairless rats strain, and the RCS rats. You Know Where would have to freez over before they out law any of those. All these rats are a HUGE role in how/what we use for medicine or lab testing, few ppl keep them as pets. As for a the common rat or ones we like to feed are snake are called the Fancy Rat which is consider a domesticated Rattus norvegicus. With that being said there is no worry if 669 some how gets passed there is no worrys of snakes going hungry.

This bill would fly out the window if they wanted to try to eradicate the common rat, it would cost us Billions of dolloars


Here is a link to a web site that scratchs on species, strains, breeds and varieties
http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatSpecies.htm

---

I am well acquainted with ratbehavior.org.

This phrase I bolded. The black rat is actually far less common than the Norway rat. The Norway rat being what we feed our animals, used in research AND is a popular pet, sold in most pet stores, Petco, Petsmart and other large chains.

(Again, not sure why you think few people keep them as pets. There is an entire industry of people that keep them as pets. It is called the Rat Fancy.)

However, I am not sure you understand what this bill literally proposes. That all animals are guilty until proven innocent. It isn't fair in court, it isn't fair now.

Have ALL of you sent an email to your rep?

So where is this bill now, anyway?

Where does it go next?

Visit nohr669.com

Hi,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vandalism

ok found it...well some of it. Black rats (Rattus rattus) and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), which helped make Sprague-Dawley, Wistar rat,Long-Evans rat, Zucker rat,Hairless rats strain, and the RCS rats. You Know Where would have to freez over before they out law any of those. All these rats are a HUGE role in how/what we use for medicine or lab testing, few ppl keep them as pets. As for a the common rat or ones we like to feed are snake are called the Fancy Rat which is consider a domesticated Rattus norvegicus. With that being said there is no worry if 669 some how gets passed there is no worrys of snakes going hungry.

This bill would fly out the window if they wanted to try to eradicate the common rat, it would cost us Billions of dolloars


Here is a link to a web site that scratchs on species, strains, breeds and varieties
http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatSpecies.htm

---

The idea they will not be banned as pets simply because they are used in laboratory testing is flawed.

They test on primates and many other species of animal too - and they are not on the exemptions list either.


dr del

Back in the day I took an environmental science class in college. A bigger threat to native animals is non-native plants. Non-native plants kill native plants that native animals have been eating and thriving on for decades. Why don't these liberal wackos start buy going out in the woods and digging up all the non-native plants in America? That should keep them busy for a while and off our backs.