OPPOSE HF 253

This bill creates regulations for dog and cat breeders, including licensing and inspection procedures, standards of care, civil enforcement provisions, and administrative and criminal penalties. Commercial breeder defined as anyone owning or having interest in 20 or more adult intact dogs/cats and 5 litters/year. Adult defined as 24 weeks of age. Fees to be established. Inspections can be delegated to third parties.

HF 253 text, status, summary

** TALKING POINTS **

* HF 253 is unnecessary because current Minnesota law already addresses animal cruelty, care and housing in animal facilities.

* HF 253 limits ownership of personal property (dog/cats) a violation of property rights.

* Allows funds to be donated by private parties to help develop commercial breeder regulation and inspection program, including delegating inspections to private organizations who could implement their own agendas.

* It is wrong to use a numerical basis to begin excessive regulation of dog breeders; numbers do not correlate to quality of care. Laws for animal welfare and to prevent animal cruelty are already in place to protect all animals whether it is one dog or one hundred.

* In these difficult financial times it would seem prudent for legislators to focus their time and energy on the needs of Minnesota families, employment, and budget solutions rather than create unnecessary legislation.

* There is insufficient data to support that this bill can be self sustaining while not negatively impacting some of the best hobby breeders in the state. The enforcement necessary to support this sort of legislation is unreasonable.

* There is no standard in place for training of inspectors and veterinarians for this purpose. The Board of Animal Health would need to be significantly expanded in order to take on the task of home inspections alone.

* HF 253 exempts rescue groups, humane societies, and animal control authorities from the standards of care commercial breeders would have to provide should the bills be enacted.

* HF 253 duplicates provisions of the federal Animal Welfare Act and the licensing provisions of the United States Department of Agriculture, making the bills unnecessary.

* The term "possesses or has ownership interest in" is vague and would include co-owned animals even out of state.

ACTION IS REQUIRED NOW.
A hearing is scheduled for Friday, March 27 at 8:30 a.m.

Contact the members of Agriculture, Rural Economies and Veterans Affairs committee and oppose HF 253.

EMAIL THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE WITH ONE CLICK HERE AND OPPOSE HF 253 !!

According to this HF954 still in committee.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/revisor/pages/search_status/status_detail.php?b=House&f=HF954&ssn=0&y=2009

Section 1. [253B.24] TRANSMITTAL OF DATA TO NATIONAL INSTANT
CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.
When a court:
(1) commits a person under this chapter as being mentally ill, developmentally
disabled, mentally ill and dangerous, or chemically dependent; or
(2) determines in a criminal case that a person is incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of mental illness, the court shall ensure that this information is transmitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 624.713, is amended by adding a subdivision
to read:
Subd. 4. Petition authorized to restore ability of committed persons to possess firearm. A person prohibited from possessing a firearm under subdivision 1, clause (3), (5), or (10), item (iv), due to confinement or commitment resulting from a judicial determination that the person was mentally ill, developmentally disabled, mentally ill and dangerous, or chemically dependent may petition a court to restore the person's ability to possess a firearm. The court may grant the relief sought if the person shows good cause to do so, that the person no longer suffers from the condition that led to the confinement or commitment, that the person is not likely to act in a manner that is dangerous to public safety, and that the granting of the relief sought is not contrary to the public interest.

It appears that a patient suffering from a mental illness, which is no fault of his own, will be forced to hire counsel and expensive expert witnesses just to get his gun rights back. I would think that if he is released from the hospital, he should be "well" enought to automatically enjoy his rights as an American.

The onus should be on the State, not the patient.

The next "loophole" will be that mental patients already own guns.

That will be the next big deal..

It appears that a patient suffering from a mental illness, which is no fault of his own, will be forced to hire counsel and expensive expert witnesses just to get his gun rights back. I would think that if he is released from the hospital, he should be "well" enought to automatically enjoy his rights as an American.

But what is the current law in Minnesota on restoration of gun rights after a court finding of mental illness? Is there any method, currently?

You get a "note" from a licensed physician that you are "cured" and the transferee permit MUST be issued. No liability for the MD. Read Minn. Stat. sections 624.713, subd. 1, clauses (3) and (5).

No one has EVER complained about this procedure in over 40 years.

I believe that the bill that actually passed out of committee is WORSE than the bill originally introduced. At least Rep. Lesch was talking about making it worse. BTW, Jdege, you can't always believe what is on the Revisor's Page.