|
1-10 of 12 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
|
Is Snake Ownership a Constitutional Right ?
|
Reply
|
|
by ProEugenics52 on April 23, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This comment by AquaHerp in the last thread caught my attention. He wrote, "[keeping hots] is a privilege and it IS NOT constitutional right." Now I don't know about most people on this site but I was taught growing up in America that a man has the right to his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as long as he does not harm another man's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Now since me owning my cobra does not affect anyone's life liberty, or pursuit of happiness, I would think that it is a constitutional right. In fact Benjamin Franklyn even supported The Gadsden flag which is a historical American flag depicting a rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike. Positioned below the snake is the legend "DONT TREAD ON ME." It is also used by the Marines. In fact, Benjamin Franklyn kept hot snakes himself and in December 1775 he published an essay in the Pennsylvania Journal under the pseudonym American Guesser in which he suggested that the rattlesnake was a good symbol for the American spirit:
"I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids—She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.—She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.—As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shown and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:—Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of stepping on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?"[3]
Now the flag is called the Stars and Stripes (or Old Glory) flag, and since the revolution, the flag is seen as a symbol of American patriotism, a symbol of small government, and ironically, a symbol of support for civil liberties. It has even become a Tea Party symbol. Teddy Roosevelt even kept a pet snake in the white house. Now I know that some of you may argue that keeping hot snakes has the potential to threaten the public's health and safety. And this is true, they do have the potential to threaten the public's health and safety, but so do other things such as dogs, cats, cars, alcohol, etc. And from a statistical standpoint, the private owner ship of hots puts the public at a much lower risk for injury then all of things I mentioned. In states where they are legal accidents that occur from privately owned animals are extremely low. I know plenty of people here in the U.S. who keep hots privately and responsibly and none of ever had a serious problem that resulted of owning their animals. Thus it has now become a civil liberties issue, and this idea that we should ban first and ask questions last seems a little ridiculous to me. It has never been enough of a problem to ban them in the first place. So given the fact that freedom is a key principle in the U.S. Constitution and that every man has a right to his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, I would argue that keeping hots is my Constitutional right because pursuing herpetological experiences is my pursuit of happiness and what in the hell gives someone the right to tell me that I am not entitled to keep my hot snake. I have inalienable rights, and I take this to be my civil liberty, because again, it is my pursuit of happiness, and my hobby.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Snake Ownership a Constitutional Right ?
|
Reply
|
|
by theemojohnm on April 23, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The 1'st Amendment is our freedom of speech, in the US. Yet, in recent years, there have been plenty of cases where this right has been clearly and severely violated.
I agree with you, 100%. So long as I am hurting nobody, I feel, I should be free to own my property, however I should chose to do so.
However, because there is the POTENTIAL to harm others, many government agencies simply won't allow it.
Although, fact is, that NOTHING outlines this right, directly, in the US Constitution. There is NO "citizens have the right to possess venomous reptiles" clause in the US Constitution, and for this reason it is NOT a constitutional right.
I don't agree with it, and in fact I share your viewpoint, 100% But, that is the way it is..
Our right to bear arms, is clearly defined in the Constitution, and that is why this right is never questioned. There is no such clause pertaining to owning reptiles, unfortunately. And for this reason, it is not a protected right, under the constitution. And, is in fact, a privilege in the eyes of most lawmakers.
Your interpretation of the “pursuit of happiness” as well as mine, aren’t the viewpoints that count, unfortunately.
Take Care,
-John Mendrola
|
| |
|
RE: Is Snake Ownership a Constitutional Right ?
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on April 23, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I see your viewpoint. However, the truth is...it is not a right. One could argue that it makes them happy to drive his car at 115 mph. Does this mean we allow it for him because it is his "pursuit of happiness". Nope, and why? Because driving is a privilege and not a right. Now, if you argue that it is a civil liberty...okay then. But, not a civil right. There is a difference. If you attack it from a "it's my right" perspective then you have already lost half the battle from a legal standpoint. Should you be banned from something out of pure ignorance and prejudice? Hell no. Now we are delving into civil rights. See the angle? Attention and wits will win the battle, not screaming in the wind.
DH
|
| |
|
RE: Is Snake Ownership a Constitutional Right ?
|
Reply
|
|
by proeugenics55 on April 28, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just because the constitution does not explicitly state that we have the right to own reptiles, does not mean that it is unconstitutional. There are two reasons why, first, the constitution itself dos not give us rights, the constitution is just a representation of the inalienable human rights that we all already have. Hence the constitution does not need to explicitly state that I have the right to practice herpetology because I was already endowed with that right from my creator. Hence the right to practice herpetology is a civil right. And ironically, civil rights themselves were not explicitly in the constitution, the concept evolved and they added an amendment. Thus, although it is not in the constitution now, it can one day be in the constitution because it is a civil rights issue like abortion. Second, the founding fathers new they could not address every issues that would come up in the future, that is why when they wrote the constitution they did not just right it as "statutory law" but in the spirit of ideas and principals that would help us decide issues in the future. I think that the freedom to keep reptiles is within the spirit of the constitution and thus constitutional.
I would also like to add that aqua herps reasoning is wrong when he wrote: One could argue that it makes them happy to drive his car at 115 mph. Does this mean we allow it for him because it is his 'pursuit of happiness.'" Remember, Adam Smith wrote that: man has the right to his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as long as he does not harm another man's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. In the case, driving at 115 mph would put people in danger, as where owning a hot snake would not. Now although I somewhat agree that civil rights law in its current statutory form would probably not extend to this issue because it was primarily concerned with racial discrimination at the time, I do believe that in actuality it is a civil right. Although, if taken to court, one could probably make a better case under a different statue. Second, I am not just "yelling in the wind" we live in a democracy where "the people" govern. Having influential dialogues about issue that come up on Google all the time is not just "yelling in the wind" because it spreads information to other places, and influences people when it comes up on Google. It is simply being an optimist, and a good, active citizen.
To be clear my arguments are that 1) the constitution is just a representation of the inalienable human rights that we all already have and 2) the constitutions not just "statutory law" but ideas and principals that guide people. If you don't understand this read Riggs v. Palmer, 22 N.E. 188 (1889). Palmer had poisoned his grandfather because his grandfather intended to disinherit him. Under New York inheritance statutes, Palmer was entitled to inherit all but a small portion of his grandfather's estate. The statutes required valid wills to be enforced, and provided no exception that would prevent a killer from inheriting from his victim. The validity of a will is determined at the time it is executed (signed). When the will was executed, Palmer had done nothing wrong.
The court looked to the maxims from a result it saw as unjust. It wrote, "He now claims the property, and the sole question for our determination is, can he have it?" The court decided he could not, noting that on top of statutory law, there were also fundamental maxims & principals inherent in the law, that act as law, and could be used to strike down an unjust statutory law.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Snake Ownership a Constitutional Right ?
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on April 28, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You are entitled to your opinion. However, your argument has failed in every single instance that it was used when local bans came in to play.
It is what it is.
DH
|
| |
|
RE: Is Snake Ownership a Constitutional Right ?
|
Reply
|
|
by agkistrodude on April 28, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Plus, I'm not sure how exotics would come into play, but US native reptiles belong to the state they reside in. Just like whitetail deer, turkey, etc. The state sells you a license for the privilege to hunt deer during a specific season. The state can also take that privilege away from you. The same holds true with all US wildlife. It belongs to the states. And if they migrate, they belong to the Feds. (ducks, geese) Get on any state DNR website, and they list any and all wildlife that are protected, can be hunted, etc. Therefore, I don't see owning reptiles as a Constitutional or a God given "right". At least that's how I see it. Take care, Marty
|
| |
|
RE: Is Snake Ownership a Constitutional Right ?
|
Reply
|
|
by proeugenics55 on April 29, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I am sure that my argument would fail on the "local level" because state and city laws are governed by state constitutions, and are fought out in state courts. I am using an argument that would only hold weight in a federal court. Although I did acknowledge that while I believe what I said to be a practical reality, there probably is another argument out there that would be more effective for use in negating these laws on the federal level. On the state level the argument would vary depending on what state you are in. With that said I would also like to ask you for an instance in which either one of my arguments were used on either the state or federal level, because I have searched and could not find any. What case is it that you are citing ?
With regards to agkistrodudes argument I would just like to say that if you are looking to state law for insight into our God given rights you are sadly mistaken. I would cite the bible which states that man has dominion over all of the earth and over all of the animals there of. Now if you were to ask the question: since the state has the right to regulate our God given right to hunt, should they also have the ability to regulate our God given right to "own," I am sure you would say yes. However, my objection to this argument would be two fold: 1st of all, if states were only regulating hot ownership it would not really be a big deal, but they are not just regulating it, they are out right banning it. It is much different to say that they are banning our God given right then it is to say that they are regulating it. Second, regulating hunting is a practical necessity because if they didn't there would be nothing left to hunt. As were there is no practical necessity in regulating private reptile ownership, and even if there were, that would still very different from an outright ban or regulations that it make to difficult for a member of the general public to obtain a reptile.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Snake Ownership a Constitutional Right ?
|
Reply
|
|
by proeugenics55 on April 29, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Your arguments also fail to adress the issue of imported reptiles that are not state owned, and the practical reality that people ban jeeps out of an irrational biblical fear of them, ignorance, ideology, and discrimination. If they were causing really significant problems, I would agree 100%, but in states where they are legal, they just are not. I could see a ban on something like turtles under 4 inches, as they have been proven to spread disease, but not on something like rattle snakes or pythons which cause relatively little or no real harm to people at all.
|
| |
|
RE: Is Snake Ownership a Constitutional Right ?
|
Reply
|
|
by AquaHerp on April 29, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Okay. Good luck with that.
Homework is your own to do. I'm not going to debate the issue any longer. As I said : it is what it is.
DH
|
| |
|
RE: Is Snake Ownership a Constitutional Right ?
|
Reply
|
|
by FSB on May 2, 2011
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The guarantee of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is one of the "inalienable rights" outlined not in the Constitution but in the Declaration of Independence. Though some of the founders, notably Jefferson, held the Declaration in higher esteem than the Constitution, it still doesn't make it "Constitutional."
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
