RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Donald Trump Signs Bill Criminalizing Animal Torture - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Donald Trump Signs Bill Criminalizing Animal Torture Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • ***-----------***
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 51,799
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 27 November 2019 - 03:10 AM

Donald Trump Signs Bill Criminalizing Animal Torture

Breitbart
By Charlie Spiering
26 Nov 2019

Excerpt:

President Donald Trump signed H.R. 724 on Monday, a bill criminalizing animal abuse and the creation and distribution of pictures and videos of animal torture.

“It is important that we combat these heinous and sadistic acts of cruelty, which are totally unacceptable in a civilized society,” Trump said as he signed the Protect Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT).

The president was joined by a number of animal non-profit activist representatives from the Humane Society, Animal Wellness Action, Big Dog Ranch Rescue, the National Animal Care and Control Association, and the Warrior Dog Foundation.

“From battlefields to hospitals, from the ranches of the frontier to the backyards of America, from animals of service to animals of war, our nation’s animals have played a vital role in the development, settlement, security, and happiness of our country,” Trump said.

The new law makes it a federal crime to engage in the crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating and impaling of live animals, allowing federal law enforcement to prosecute perpetrators within federal jurisdiction, according to the Humane Society

“We have a responsibility to honor the dignity of God’s creation,” Trump said. “With today’s act, we take the critical step toward being more responsible and humane stewards of our planet and all who we want to cherish and take care of, and all of those who live on it.”

*snip*

Full Article
0

#2 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,930
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 03:29 AM

Quote

“It is important that we combat these heinous and sadistic acts of cruelty, which are totally unacceptable in a civilized society,” Trump said as he signed the Protect Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT).


Words that bear repeating frequently.
0

#3 User is online   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,715
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 27 November 2019 - 04:32 AM

:clap:
0

#4 User is offline   grimreefer 

  • U.S. Merchant Marine
  • View gallery
  • Group: Diamond Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,187
  • Joined: 18-December 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 05:27 AM

So.... now someone's gonna have to invent another mouse trap? And how long before the lefties announce how they're pro crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating and impaling of live animals now?


:whistling:

This post has been edited by grimreefer: 27 November 2019 - 05:29 AM

0

#5 User is online   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 32,172
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 07:11 AM

This is a nice gesture and all, but really the feds have no business at all in legislating and passing and enforcing these types of criminal laws against individuals.

Those are within the scope of the state's responsibilities under the constitution, not the feds.

*/Rand Paul voice off*
0

#6 User is offline   Moderator T 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 37,691
  • Joined: 02-October 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 07:31 AM

View PostRock N, on 27 November 2019 - 07:11 AM, said:

This is a nice gesture and all, but really the feds have no business at all in legislating and passing and enforcing these types of criminal laws against individuals.

Those are within the scope of the state's responsibilities under the constitution, not the feds.

*/Rand Paul voice off*

Unless it covers abuse of animals that are crossing state lines via commerce (farm animals, pets bought in one state and sold elsewhere etc), I agree. That said I'm all for increasing penalties for animal cruelty at the state and local level.
0

#7 User is online   erp 

  • Undead Undead Undead
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 38,282
  • Joined: 29-November 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 07:41 AM

Does this mean we have to be nice to democrats now?


🤔
0

#8 User is online   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 32,172
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 07:47 AM

View Posterp, on 27 November 2019 - 07:41 AM, said:

Does this mean we have to be nice to democrats now?


��

Or under the guise of ethical treatment, they should be put out of their misery like an injured, sick or old pet? :D

They sure are all constantly miserable living with Trump as president?

This post has been edited by Rock N' Roll Right Winger: 27 November 2019 - 07:49 AM

0

#9 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,679
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 27 November 2019 - 08:08 AM

View PostRock N, on 27 November 2019 - 07:47 AM, said:

Or under the guise of ethical treatment, they should be put out of their misery like an injured, sick or old pet? :D

They sure are all constantly miserable living with Trump as president?


:biglaugh:
0

#10 User is online   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,959
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 10:58 AM

This is not the Federal Governments role. This is a state responsibility. So when people get rolled up federally for killing a wild animal that is threatening their kids down the road don't run to their defense. All laws at the Federal Level can be abused based on political agenda. At least locally you have some reach to it as a citizen.

This is not a good idea.

0

#11 User is online   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,959
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 11:00 AM

View PostModerator T, on 27 November 2019 - 07:31 AM, said:

Unless it covers abuse of animals that are crossing state lines via commerce (farm animals, pets bought in one state and sold elsewhere etc), I agree. That said I'm all for increasing penalties for animal cruelty at the state and local level.


Other than south American's using animals as a entertainment source through fighting in pits, this is not common. Oh and we can deal with most of that simply by getting rid of the illegal population, and then cracking down on the professional NFL athletes that continue the system after they are gone. Thus no need for this law, just get rid of the people perpetuating it.

0

#12 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 18,201
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 27 November 2019 - 11:33 AM

Good.
0

#13 User is online   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,959
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 11:40 AM

View PostLadybird, on 27 November 2019 - 11:33 AM, said:

Good.


Good as in you believe it's the Fed's role to determine what you can and can't do? What happens when they apply this to trapping festering animals like rats? Will you be ok when minorities in places like NYC find themselves running afoul the Federal Government simply because they are getting rid of a rodent infestation that some marxist disagrees with?
0

#14 User is online   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,015
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 12:29 PM

I agree with RNRRW and Taggart. While a good gesture, this law has the potential for abuse. (Well, they all do.) The scope of it, though, seems to target internet snuff videos and animal fighting. Which people pay for. Maybe think of it as RICO protection for Rex and Regina.

And wouldn't you know it... :redhot:

Local News: Horse Dragged by Truck
0

#15 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,888
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 27 November 2019 - 12:31 PM

View PostTaggart Transcontinental, on 27 November 2019 - 10:58 AM, said:

This is not the Federal Governments role. This is a state responsibility. So when people get rolled up federally for killing a wild animal that is threatening their kids down the road don't run to their defense. All laws at the Federal Level can be abused based on political agenda. At least locally you have some reach to it as a citizen.

This is not a good idea.

Exactly. First, the feds have no business getting, once again, into the weeds regulating local behaviors from on high. That never works out. And remember, when you get a touchy feely leftist urban dwelling kind of govt bureaucrat in, things that have been done for centuries will suddenly be illegal.

Where I live, raccoons are a huge problem. The idiots in the cities think they're oh so cute, but in reality they are destructive, rabies carrying vermin. Are we going to now be prosecuted, as has been done in some localities, for trapping or shooting the damned pests? If you trap one, the most humane way of putting it down is drowning it. Now that will be a federal crime. You can crap on the street, but how dare you kill an animal in an unapproved way, or at all, and you're a felon for life.

This will not turn out well and will be abused by people with an ax to grind, the usual PETA types.

This post has been edited by Severian: 27 November 2019 - 12:31 PM

0

#16 User is offline   Weaseljd 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,623
  • Joined: 04-September 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 01:11 PM

OK, here is another example of everyone here going unhinged over an article and headline without actually reading the law that was passed. First, the text of the law does NOT do what the article claims. Second, the "new" law is actually an amendment of a pre-existing law. the law only applies to acts of that can effect interstate commerce, and has a crap ton of exceptions. here is the text of the original statute and then the new amendment. You tell me if this was worth going ballistic about the federal government regulating things it should not regulate. Next time guys and gals, do some research and actually read the statutes before you cry about government overreach:

original statute, 18 USC sec 48:

HEAD

Sec. 48. Depiction of animal cruelty
STATUTE

(a) Creation, Sale, or Possession. - Whoever knowingly creates,
sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the
intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign
commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(B) Exception. - Subsection (a) does not apply to any depiction
that has serious religious, political, scientific, educational,
journalistic, historical, or artistic value.
© Definitions. - In this section -
(1) the term "depiction of animal cruelty" means any visual or
auditory depiction, including any photograph, motion-picture
film, video recording, electronic image, or sound recording of
conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed,
mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if such conduct is
illegal under Federal law or the law of the State in which the
creation, sale, or possession takes place, regardless of whether
the maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing took place
in the State; and
(2) the term "State" means each of the several States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and any other commonwealth, territory, or
possession of the United States.
****


Now, here is the text of amendment just signed (bold added by me to emphasize the limits):


To revise section 48 of title 18, United States Code, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act” or the “PACT Act”.

SEC. 2. REVISION OF SECTION 48.

(a) In General.—Section 48 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

Ҥ 48. Animal crushing

“(a) Offenses.—

“(1) CRUSHING.—It shall be unlawful for any person to purposely engage in animal crushing in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

“(2) CREATION OF ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEOS.—It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly create an animal crush video, if—

“(A) the person intends or has reason to know that the animal crush video will be distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce; or

“(B) the animal crush video is distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce.

“(3) DISTRIBUTION OF ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEOS.—It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, market, advertise, exchange, or distribute an animal crush video in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce.

“(B) Extraterritorial Application.—This section applies to the knowing sale, marketing, advertising, exchange, distribution, or creation of an animal crush video outside of the United States, if—

“(1) the person engaging in such conduct intends or has reason to know that the animal crush video will be transported into the United States or its territories or possessions; or

“(2) the animal crush video is transported into the United States or its territories or possessions.

“© Penalties.—Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 7 years, or both.

“(d) Exceptions.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—This section does not apply with regard to any conduct, or a visual depiction of that conduct, that is—

“(A) a customary and normal veterinary, agricultural husbandry, or other animal management practice;

“(B) the slaughter of animals for food;

“© hunting, trapping, fishing, a sporting activity not otherwise prohibited by Federal law, predator control, or pest control;

“(D) medical or scientific research;

“(E) necessary to protect the life or property of a person; or

“(F) performed as part of euthanizing an animal.


“(2) GOOD-FAITH DISTRIBUTION.—This section does not apply to the good-faith distribution of an animal crush video to—

“(A) a law enforcement agency; or

“(B) a third party for the sole purpose of analysis to determine if referral to a law enforcement agency is appropriate.

“(3) UNINTENTIONAL CONDUCT.—This section does not apply to unintentional conduct that injures or kills an animal.

“(4) CONSISTENCY WITH RFRA.—This section shall be enforced in a manner that is consistent with section 3 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1).

“(e) No Preemption.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt the law of any State or local subdivision thereof to protect animals.

“(f) Definitions.—In this section—

“(1) the term ‘animal crushing’ means actual conduct in which one or more living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians is purposely crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise subjected to serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 and including conduct that, if committed against a person and in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate section 2241 or 2242);

“(2) the term ‘animal crush video’ means any photograph, motion-picture film, video or digital recording, or electronic image that—

“(A) depicts animal crushing; and

“(B) is obscene; and

“(3) the term ‘euthanizing an animal’ means the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that—

“(A) produces rapid unconsciousness and subsequent death without evidence of pain or distress; or

“(B) uses anesthesia produced by an agent that causes painless loss of consciousness and subsequent death.”.


(B) Technical And Conforming Amendment.—The table of sections for chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 48 and inserting the following:


“48. Animal crushing.”.


So really, is this something that is worth getting all that excited about here about evil government overreach?

This post has been edited by Weaseljd: 27 November 2019 - 01:13 PM

0

#17 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 59,452
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 01:18 PM

"Impaling"? Soooo...no more bow hunting? I mean, what fits the "impaling" description better than an arrow?

I agree this is well-meant legislation, put forward by well-meaning people. But it's something that should be decided at the state level, not federal.

B)
0

#18 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 59,452
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 01:25 PM

Hmmmm...I shoulda read Weasel's post before posting.

B)
0

#19 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,888
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 27 November 2019 - 02:58 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 27 November 2019 - 01:25 PM, said:

Hmmmm...I shoulda read Weasel's post before posting.

B)

Given how the Commerce Clause has been abused and used to justify things it never was meant to, the law quoted still is disturbing. There is a lot of room for interpretation as to what constitutes, say, euthanasia, and such. The right set of leftist bureaucrats can easily say that anything outside of a gentle drug administration by a triply certified vet with the animal being held in your arms with a bouquet of flowers is not allowed. It still is an area the govt should stay the hell out of, it's just another layer of legal BS bureaucrats can and will interpret in a ways that are not intended to push an agenda.

This is NOT the federal governments business. We get this legislative overreach justified by the fact a handful of morons like to post crap on the internet. Good job guys, give the government a rationale to find another way to screw with you.
0

#20 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,930
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 27 November 2019 - 03:00 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 27 November 2019 - 01:18 PM, said:

"Impaling"? Soooo...no more bow hunting? I mean, what fits the "impaling" description better than an arrow?

I agree this is well-meant legislation, put forward by well-meaning people. But it's something that should be decided at the state level, not federal.

B)


Okay, I woke up feeling a little more ticked than usual today so I'm gonna chime in here.

Hunters who hunt with bow and arrow generally go out there to bring down an animal for meat just like those using a rifle. Can we agree on that basis?

(Granted, this seems like common sense stuff but you know leftards don't grasp the fine minutia of common sense and prefer to twist schidt up right out of the gate, so we need to keep the troll fodder down, because as I said, I woke up a little more ticked than usual...)

If these guys were going out there to shoot as many arrows into the animal as they could WITHOUT killing it so that they could get their jollies watching it suffer, that AIN'T hunting, that's sadism and it's sick and it should be stopped.

The same with people who think that dog fighting and <censored> fighting are acceptable sadism and cruelty because they should be covered by a 'cultural thang' instead of being recognized for exactly what it is.

Don't even get me started on the sick and disgusting things people do to kittens, chicks, and puppies other assorted baby creatures on film.

If the state knobs would do something to combat this garbage maybe federal beefing up of the laws at that level wouldn't be necessary, but it's a crap shoot whether or not these vile people get the punishment they deserve.

And let's not forget that people who do this to animals, or get their jollies watching it being done to animals, rarely stick to animals, they tend to escalate to the bigger thrill of doing or watching it be done to human beings.

And while it shouldn't be necessary to point this out, this isn't directed at you, Monty. This is just merely my jumping on the coattails of your point to make mine that leftard stretching this kind of protection out of shape to suit their idiocy shouldn't be allowed.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users