Being listed as an injurious species (ie, the Lacey Act) does not prohibit ownership. In fact, an often overlooked fact is that the Lacey Act is actually a supplemental statute that serves the purpose of providing larger penalties for a law that has already been broken.
A person can NOT be prosecuted ONLY under the Lacey Act. They have to violate another law or rule FIRST. Hence "S373 and HR2811" as well as the proposed "rule change".
For instance, if S373 passed and was signed into law, then a person violated that law, they would be guilty of a felony and could then be prosecuted under the Lacey Act.
So, in effect, ONLY adding the animals to the Lacey Act wouldn't do much unless another law is created or rule change is made.
This issue has actually been oversimplified (due to its EXTREMELY confusing nature) and S373 and HR2811 do not actually seek to add these animals to the Lacey Act. It will make violating a law with regards to these animals PUNISHABLE by the Lacey Act. The net effect to the average person is zero, but there is a subtle difference.
That either helped, or confused you more. I hope it helped...
jb
Reply With Quote