petrina
January 2nd, 2009, 10:20 AM
The California Supreme Court is expected to rule this week on the fortitude of a California law stating that residents on probation need to alert their probation officer within 24 hours of bringing a pet into their home.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/01/BAIJ1525NI.DTL
The law attempts to curb dog attacks on probation officers who may drop in for a cuppa at any time, but its wording does not distinguish between canines and hermit crabs. As it stands now, if a California probationer is caught with his hands in the proverbial goldfish bowl, he is just as likely to go back to prison as if he were caught cleaning a glock while smoking crack and fondling hookers (an amalgamation of my fave pastimes – the ambrosia of the gods).
I understand the sentiment behind this law, but seriously… 24 hours? I would be back to making license plates as someone’s bitch in a heartbeat. I am just not that organized. And what if you are just “holding the pet for a friend”? How many hours constitutes possession of said pet?
For that matter, what makes probation officers so special? Why stop there? I can see the meter readers, mail carriers and census workers of CA uniting to pass a law requiring that ALL residents register their inter-species roommates. “What do we want?! Register Fluffy!! When do we want it?! NOW!!!!”
And what about the definition of “pet”? The Clinton era taught us nothing if not that words we thought were easily definable are, in fact, ambiguous to some. Does your lizard eat crickets? Do the crickets need to be registered as pets as well or are they food? For that matter, can your defense be that Fido is not a pet, but Christmas dinner?
And if – hypothetically speaking of course– a person were to be called “Pet” as a term of endearment…. I mean, … do they… would they have to… that is to say… for reals??
I object.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/01/BAIJ1525NI.DTL
The law attempts to curb dog attacks on probation officers who may drop in for a cuppa at any time, but its wording does not distinguish between canines and hermit crabs. As it stands now, if a California probationer is caught with his hands in the proverbial goldfish bowl, he is just as likely to go back to prison as if he were caught cleaning a glock while smoking crack and fondling hookers (an amalgamation of my fave pastimes – the ambrosia of the gods).
I understand the sentiment behind this law, but seriously… 24 hours? I would be back to making license plates as someone’s bitch in a heartbeat. I am just not that organized. And what if you are just “holding the pet for a friend”? How many hours constitutes possession of said pet?
For that matter, what makes probation officers so special? Why stop there? I can see the meter readers, mail carriers and census workers of CA uniting to pass a law requiring that ALL residents register their inter-species roommates. “What do we want?! Register Fluffy!! When do we want it?! NOW!!!!”
And what about the definition of “pet”? The Clinton era taught us nothing if not that words we thought were easily definable are, in fact, ambiguous to some. Does your lizard eat crickets? Do the crickets need to be registered as pets as well or are they food? For that matter, can your defense be that Fido is not a pet, but Christmas dinner?
And if – hypothetically speaking of course– a person were to be called “Pet” as a term of endearment…. I mean, … do they… would they have to… that is to say… for reals??
I object.