I always get a kick out of it when a Legislator comes up with “There ought to be a law” contest. Don’t they know there are already too many laws?
But my own assemblymember just sent such an email:
DO YOU HAVE A BILL IDEA?
Beginning September 15, 2023, I am launching our annual There Ought to Be a Law program for residents of the 79th Assembly District. We value constituent input and invite our community members and organizations to submit ideas for new laws. We want to hear from you!
Here is what I sent in:
Dear Assemblywoman Weber,
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this question.
I wish there were “There Ought Not be a Law” as well, It is hard to get rid of a bad law once it is enacted.
Secondly, since I have only 1 wish here, my second wish is to get rid of corporate and PAC money in elections. Normal citizens can’t compete with special interests and elected officials such as yourself must cater to those with the funds to get what they want, i.e., special interests over grassroots.
But I have only one wish. I WISH THERE WAS A LAW TO LEGALIZE FERRETS.
Domestic ferrets are legal in 48 states. Have you ever heard of any downside to this? Occasionally someone gets bitten, but anything with teeth can bite. And ferret bites are unusual. Domestic ferrets were first widely bred for laboratory use, the pet industry is a secondary market. Marshall Farms, who controls 70% of the breeding in this country, has been breeding for a gentle temperament.
The ferret ban is wrong for a few reasons:
The classification of domestic ferrets as wild and illegal animals in California is arbitrary, unsupported by scientific evidence, and discriminatory, and it violates Due Process rights under the California State Constitution
California State Constitution, Article I, Section 7:
“Sec. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation.”
Domestic ferrets are domestic animals and our right to own domestic animals is recognized by the California Civil Code:
The California Constitution guarantees its citizens certain inalienable rights, one of which is the right to acquire, possess and protect property.[FN3] Property in California encompasses a broad class of “things” and is defined in terms of ownership. [FN4] Accordingly, California’s Civil Code includes “all domestic animals” as property subject to ownership.[FN5]
CIVIL CODE – CIV
DIVISION 2. PROPERTY [654 – 1422]
( Heading of Division 2 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 13. )
PART 1. PROPERTY IN GENERAL [654 – 749]
( Part 1 enacted 1872. )
TITLE 1. NATURE OF PROPERTY [654 – 663]
( Title 1 enacted 1872. )
655.
There may be ownership of all inanimate things which are capable of appropriation or of manual delivery; of all domestic animals; of all obligations; of such products of labor or skill as the composition of an author, the good will of a business, trade marks and signs, and of rights created or granted by statute.
(Enacted 1872.)
Introducing a ferret legalization bill would be a risky venture for any legislator. The special interest, namely radicalized environmentalists would oppose it. I have seen that they aren’t pleasant people to begin with and they don’t let facts get in the way of what they want to say or believe in.
They quietly say that pet ownership is animal slavery. (PETA)
The Sierra Club is concerned about global warming and warns about the carbon footprint of providing food to meat-eating pets. The carbon footprint of domestic ferrets is a laughable concept, and that is why they tell the public about the possibility of domestic ferrets going feral and harming native wildlife. This has never happened, but it is believable that talking about pet slavery, or the carbon footprint of meat-eating ferrets would not be well received by the public.
I would be remiss not to point out the one downside to ferret legalization that we ferret lovers are most concerned about. The impulse buying of ferrets. Ferrets, more than most pets, are a serious commitment. We don’t want people to buy them on impulse and find out they are not up to ferret-keeping. Therefore, we think that a one-time license fee might be appropriate to boost the cost of buying a ferret. That money could also be used to help fund local animal control.
It would take courage to introduce a ferret legalization bill. But it would be healthy if all we got was an honest discussion of the subject. The authorities and I’m thinking of the California Fish and Game Commission, go out of their way to avoid any discussion of domestic ferrets, domestic vs. wild, and our right to own domestic ferrets as is practiced from Alaska to Patagonia except for California and NYC.
I imagine the special interest that you don’t wish to offend will keep you from even mentioning this bill, much less consider introducing it. But wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had more courage and pluck in this world? A world where the truly voiceless and powerless actually, occasionally, got a seat at the table. But this is California. And this is one reason so many of us are leaving it.