HR669 is Illegal according to the US Constitution

[Freakie_frog]

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.

[mainbutter]

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.

[Freakie_frog]

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.

[littleindiangirl]

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.

[AaronP]

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.

[Freakie_frog]

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

[mainbutter]

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.

[wilomn]

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.

[Jay_Bunny]

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!

[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?