Any news on this bill from the Golden State?

https://www.nraila.org/article...-legally-owned-ivory

Assembly Bill 96 is scheduled to be heard in the state Assembly Waters, Parks and Wildlife Committee on Tuesday, March 10. This legislation was written with the good intentions to help stop the illegal trade in wildlife, as well as poaching for meat and products such as horns and tusks. Unfortunately, AB 96 would do nothing to promote the purported goal of addressing poaching and the illegal ivory trade. AB 96 would only impose a heavy burden on law-abiding citizens and deprive them of the value of property that was originally obtained legally and in good faith.

Current California law exempts the possession with intent to sell, or sale of the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of any elephant before June 1, 1977, or the possession with intent to sell or the sale of any such item on or after June 1, 1977, if the item was imported before January 1, 1977.

AB 96 would delete this exemption and amend the law to prohibit a person from purchasing, selling, offering for sale, possessing with intent to sell, or importing with intent to sell ivory or rhinoceros horn, except as specified, and would make this prohibition enforceable by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

wow, that's a shocker- the CA legislature doing anything that would be considered anti gun or anti hunter!!!
CA is a cesspool that badly needs draining before the shit overflows onto the rest of the country....

AB96 is currently in the Assembly Appropriations committee for hearing. Our legislature is dominated by a bunch of ultra liberals who spend a lot of time and money on doing things like this that don't solve any real problems, but satisfy their hard left base. For California, its SNAFU.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/e...california-ivory-ban


Court Upholds NRDC-Sponsored California Ivory Ban!
November 28, 2016 Elly Pepper


The Los Angeles Superior Court has upheld California’s ivory ban (Assembly Bill 96; now California Fish and Game Code Section 2022) against a lawsuit brought by the Ivory Education Institute, which claimed the law was unconstitutional.

NRDC, which helped pass the legislation in 2015, disagreed and intervened on behalf of the State of California to defend the law, along with the Center for Biological Diversity, the Humane Society of the United States/Humane Society International, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and the Wildlife Conservation Society.

The California ivory ban is critically important to reducing demand for elephant ivory in the United States, given that California is one of our nation’s three largest ivory markets. Indeed, according to a 2015 NRDC-commissioned undercover investigation of California’s ivory markets, up to 90% of the ivory for sale in Los Angeles and approximately 80% of the ivory for sale in San Francisco likely came from relatively recently killed elephants and could be linked to the poaching crisis now gripping Africa.

Fortunately, the new law, which became effective this July, will eliminate California’s flourishing illegal ivory trade by banning the sale, offer for sale, possession with intent to sell, and importation with intent to sell of elephant ivory, and increasing penalties to up to $50,000 or twice the value of the goods, whichever is greater, and/or one year in prison. The law includes reasonable exemptions for activities that are unlikely to contribute to the illegal ivory trade, such as transfers to legal heirs and beneficiaries, antiques containing less than 5% ivory or rhino horn, and musical instruments that were manufactured in 1975 or earlier and which contain less than 20% of ivory or rhino horn.

Paired with the ivory ban laws NRDC has helped pass in the other top three U.S. ivory markets – New York and Hawaii—and with the funding California’s Governor Brown recently dedicated towards enforcing this law, we’re confident it’s going to make a big difference in U.S. demand for elephant ivory and, ultimately, poaching of elephants in Africa.

This is the exact same type law that was passed here in Seattle. I'd bet not 1:1000 remember a damn thing about the initiative 1401 they passed.

No one has been able to explain to me why regulated farming of ivory and rhino horn would not work. Animal products are traded globally and these should be no different.

If there is one thing that CA voters are good at, its passing feel good legislation that accomplishes nothing.

quote:

Fortunately, the new law, which became effective this July, will eliminate California’s flourishing illegal ivory trade

Passing laws work well to end illegal activities as criminals always adhere to the law.

And surely it will have no effect on legally obtained ivory, especially for hunters.

Pathetic.

I have to go to Sacramento on business from time to time. As soon as I get off the plane, I have to check to make sure I am on the right planet. The difference is that noticeable immediately.

quote:

the new law, which became effective this July, will eliminate California’s flourishing illegal ivory trade

This might be the most retarded thing I've ever read - they passed a law to make something illegal that was already illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by DrScott:

quote:

the new law, which became effective this July, will eliminate California’s flourishing illegal ivory trade

This might be the most retarded thing I've ever read - they passed a law to make something illegal that was already illegal.

That's California - The land of assorted fruits and nuts!

quote:

CA is a cesspool that badly needs draining before the shit overflows onto the rest of the country....

It's too late...just ask thew residents of Denver, Seattle, or Portland :-(

quote:

Originally posted by Biebs:

quote:

CA is a cesspool that badly needs draining before the shit overflows onto the rest of the country....

It's too late...just ask thew residents of Denver, Seattle, or Portland :-(

And soon to be Phoenix.

One thing I don't understand: you can't sell ivory from sport hunted elephants now, so how does this impact hunters? It doesn't say "possession" it says "possession with intent to sell."