usark lawsuit

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich

That's the first line from the link...read it...lacey act was made to make it illegal to go across state lines with the intent to sell poached animals from another state....interstate commerce is crossing state lines for sales.....you really don't understand much do you

You know the definition of bias. You are asking me to read and believe a line from an anti exotic website and believe it?

What are you going to do next, start quoting the humane society?

The anti pet trade and FWS want you to believe that, but the actual law, the actual words on paper does not say that. Show me in the actual law where it says anything about interstate commence.

http://www.fws.gov/international/law...lacey-act.html.

Here's fws website saying it

Here's another site saying it......https://www.animallaw.info/article/o...c-ss-3371-3378

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacey_Act_of_1900

You are one step away from posting directly from Humane society.

I understand what you are reading, but you are actually not correct on it.

This part.

Finally, it sought to buttress state laws already in existence for the protection of game and birds

If it is illegal in x state, it makes it illegal to import from y state to x state.

Pythons are not illegal in Idaho, they are not illegal in Oregon. If you import a snake from Idaho, you are not violating state law. So lacey act does not apply.

And that is only in states with laws that ban exporting or importing.

To be clear on this. The lacey act only applies to states that have restrictions or bans in place. The law was made to support state laws.

The FWS is saying that they have the right to make up a ban and enforce it on the states. The states don't ban the animal, they do. And they have the right to force that ban on all states, regardless.

That is not remotely what the lacey act says or was intended. Now that I got you to read articles about it, do you understand.

States have the right to restrict or ban animals. The lacey act only enforces those bans on a federal to support the state bans. It can not just make up bans and enforce it everywhere.

Dude you said there's nothing in the lacey that prevents interstate commerce....and I pointed out that the whole reason it was started was to ban interstate commerce...which is the actual reason it was formed ...and im right....you really need to learn how to 1 understand things and 2 learn how to argue....you keep changing to another subject every time I prove you wrong....do a search on the history of the lacey act and John lacey the person it's named after...and I'll repeat you said the lacey can't ban interstate commerce and there's nothing in the lacey act about interstate commerce...
Now this is the part where you change your argument and we'll I was only referring to the big snakes....sso go ahead and say that and I'll post what you said earlier

Animals can get ban without a state law...what you are referring to is the criminality of interstate commerce when an original state law was previously broken then the going across state line with an animal that is being possessed illegally becomes under the jurisdiction of federal government ..and in these cases it's prosecutible under lacey act..the point of that part of the lacey act is to insure that the violations in one state can still be prosecuted if the animal or person who committed the violation gos to another state....this law is totally separate from the invasive/injurious aspect of the lacey act.

That law you are talking about deals with mostly native animals...only in cases of exotics with state laws banning import or ownership does lacey act come into play...and its a whole different aspect and part of lacey act....

Seriously dude how dumb are you...you say that the secretary of the interior doesn't have any procedures to follow then you yourself post 4 for of them....you out say the lacey act has nothing to do with interstate commerce..I show you that banning interstate commerce was the reason it was started and you say I'm wrong....now your posting on the original offensive aspect of lacey act for that makes interstate commerce illegal...dude look at your own post...you out are continually proving yourself wrong with you post.....


Now your only option is to switch your argument to say that you went referring to one part of the lacey act when you said the lacey can't ban interstate commerce....you argue like a child....

And the whole point of this thread was missed because of Captain I support usark so that makes me a expert on federal legal code....the point was that pushing fws on the interstate commerce issue is going to cause fws to seek an amendment to the lacey act with very clear language that states they can regulate interstate commerce...and if the snakes are still on the lacey act when that happens we will be right back to square one.