A state senator in Massachusetts recently proposed a bill with potentially dire consequences to hunters and virtually anyone who comes in contact with an animal.
According to SB 767, any resident of the state could sue another resident on the basis of a perception of animal cruelty. Law enforcement already operates under the guidelines of animal cruelty ordinances already on the books and introducing a glut of frivolous lawsuits will do nothing to curb actual violations.
Too many in today’s society equate animal rights to human rights, which is why the general public should not be called upon to identify cases of animal cruelty.
We are by far too litigious as a culture and often an innocent party can lose a case to a particularly unsympathetic court or, even if victorious, be stuck with insurmountable legal fees.
According to Evan Heusinkveld, director of government affairs for the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, if the bill passed, “animal rights activists would be able to sue anyone — including sportsmen, farmers, and dog owners — whenever and wherever they think animal cruelty is being committed.”
No private citizen should have the authority to single-handedly bring another person’s life to a halt over a speculation. Such hunches, if warranted, will be investigated by authorities trained to identify violations of the law, Heusinkveld said.
“Enforcement of animal cruelty laws should be left in the hands of trained law enforcement officers and not be given to animal rights activists to harass law-abind animal owners and private citizens,” he said.
Leftist lawmakers always find a way to push for the advancement of a popular constituency [in this case, animal rights nuts] while intimidating or stifling an unfavorable bloc [gun-owning hunters, for instance].
Traditional conservatives often wonder how we apparently became the minority in this country so quickly. Local, state and federal legislative travesties such as this one have paved every step of the road leading to where we are today.
