People seem to focus on being caught. Should we not also think about what it means to knowingly break the law? Sure you might have a cover story to get away with it but how can we expect others around us in society to obey the laws when we opt to pick and choose which ones we follow? You are either a law breaker or not, be it keeping piranhas or smoking crack. How can you expect your neighbor to respect your rights and not steal your tools when you are not respecting the laws of the land either? We should be more introspective about law breaking instead of defensive.
My LFS Got Busted?!?!
- Thread starter Westie
- Start date
SemperFish;1695750; said:
There is a school of thought that says a law is not valid until it is challenged before a court.
Just because a law is a law does not mean that it is right, proper or valid. Some would say that laws that repugnant to morality have a duty to be broken. Think of the antimiscegenation laws of the 1960's, think of the Jim Crow laws of the same time period.
I am not claiming that these species prohibitions are among those laws, but I think it is a fallacy to say that it is inherently wrong to break a law.
Heck I think its Indiana that says its illegal for a fat woman to ride a horse while wearing shorts. A law like this, if ever enforced would likely be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of either the equal protection clause or the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
It's not what you do when people are watching: It's what you do when they aren't. I think people should obey the laws where they live because the laws were written for a reason. No matter how dumb that reason or how uninformed the lawmakers were. That is in general, though. If it were something like you can't beat an armed burglar over the head with a cast iron skillet or anti gun laws then I'd just say screw it and tell them to try and take my gun or my cast iron skillet off of me. I've got mixed reactions about this. I don't think the guy should've had charges pressed or w/e he got cause he was apparently very good at what he did, but if he'd been around that long he should've known or looked up what the laws were and abided by them, so if he broke the law he broke the law... I have to admit, though: California's got some messed up laws.
I happen to agree that fat women shouldnt ride around in shorts. im not by any means saying that a law is inherently just or right, but law breaking is not law fixing. And if we can all pick and choose which laws apply to ourselves and which do not we cannot apply the notion of law to others.
If cast iron skillets are outlawed, only outlaws will have cast iron skillets!
I actually did hit someone in the head with a frying pan once! but it was not cast iron. If it were, Id probably be in prison right now.
I actually did hit someone in the head with a frying pan once! but it was not cast iron. If it were, Id probably be in prison right now.
SemperFish;1695841; said:
The thing is breaking the law may often be the fastest and most efficient way of fixing it. Instead of lobbying each state that is wrong to prevent blacks and whites from intermarrying, you have one couple who breaks the law, then argues its unconstitutional. Once the supreme court holds that it is unconstitutional laws of the same nature get instantly repealed everywhere. (Loving v. Virginia)
You can apply the notion of laws to other in that those laws that do not violate the constitution are applicable, those that violate the constitution are not.
As for the case here, there was probably good reason for the law, I am not a biologist so I can't say for sure. It does seem a bit arbitrary that a Payara is legal yet a Rhom is not. A freshwater atlantic ray is legal, but a freshwater south american ray is not... but maybe there is some good reason that I don't know about.
Many times laws are passed by policymakers as a knee jerk reaction to some perceived fear. Some theorize that piranha are illegal in California due to an ignorance that the legislature had for the actual threat of the species caused by them being sensationalized in movies and documentaries. Heck half the time laws are passed without the legislature even reading them... think what you want of the Patriot Act but ask most congressmen, and they will say they never read the thing.
I would try to get a law passed that ecologic and Wildlife law ignorant people should not be allowed to touch a computer keyboard on an Internet forum, for their own general good, but unfortunately that would go against the First amendment..
Keep in mind you do have freedom of speech but that very same speech is going to be and will be recorded and databased in the general context of wildlife law as it pertains to "hobbyists".. your perceptions and attitudes will be a determining factor in how laws are established or rescinded...
That said you all sounds like a good bunch of you are whiny kids about having your toy taken away and the level that you can be taken serious is about zero.. If anything you are supporting the conclusions and reasons to further restrict this hobby before it does any more harm than it already has.
Keep in mind you do have freedom of speech but that very same speech is going to be and will be recorded and databased in the general context of wildlife law as it pertains to "hobbyists".. your perceptions and attitudes will be a determining factor in how laws are established or rescinded...
That said you all sounds like a good bunch of you are whiny kids about having your toy taken away and the level that you can be taken serious is about zero.. If anything you are supporting the conclusions and reasons to further restrict this hobby before it does any more harm than it already has.
itzacraze;1692763; said:
You probably already know, and perhaps disagree, but many laws are to protect the dumb. The size thing on turtles is to keep mom and dad from buying a hatchling, quarter-size red-ear for their 2-year old to put into his/her mouth and get salmonella.
Hetep
SemperFish;1695845; said:
SemperFish;1695845; said:
I seriously considered bopping my (then) almost-ex one time long ago. I would have been out of prison by now. The skillet I had then was massive.
They can't do squat to you for requesting two rays, without possession of the fish it's just going to be a waste of the DA's time and money trying to pour effort into finding enough substantial evidence against you.
They likely took all the numbers trying to find the supplier that the LFS owner is getting the illegals from - honestly if I got summoned into court to testify against him I'd just plead the 5th.
They likely took all the numbers trying to find the supplier that the LFS owner is getting the illegals from - honestly if I got summoned into court to testify against him I'd just plead the 5th.
