I wonder if this would fly in the face of so many "no pigs" or "no chickens" laws on several city's books. If people can have puppy mills, I wonder what would happen if somebody tried raising pit bulls in a city or town that doesn't allow them?
I wonder if this would fly in the face of so many "no pigs" or "no chickens" laws on several city's books. If people can have puppy mills, I wonder what would happen if somebody tried raising pit bulls in a city or town that doesn't allow them?
When we get a legal definition of "strict scrutiny" and “compelling state interest” we'll know for sure. As it is they are planning on letting the courts tell us.
Sounds just like ObamacareWhen we get a legal definition of "strict scrutiny" and “compelling state interest” we'll know for sure. As it is they are planning on letting the courts tell us.
"The so-called “Right to Farm” bill, this would prevent Oklahoma lawmakers from passing legislation designed to regulate agricultural entities unless there was a “compelling state interest” to do so. Having grown up farming and ranching, on land owned by my family for 100 years, I am a huge supporter of family farms and agriculture. This SQ, though, does not actually protect the “right to farm” and instead appears designed to protect and shield large, corporate farms from having to obey regulations designed to protect the safety of their workers, animals, and our environment. Oklahomans already have the right to farm and ranch, they just don’t have the right to ignore any and all laws surrounding what a person (or corporation) can and can’t do while farming and ranching. The Kirkpatrick Foundation has a very thorough examination of this issue that I recommend reading." (Cale Black)
This is the best breakdown I've seen.
OK, anyone have any comments on the movie above. Again, this will not directly affect me as I do not plan to be a farmer, but I want to help my friends.
Originally Yes seemed appropriate, now NO seems more appropriate.
Additional Opinions?
Originally Yes seemed appropriate, now NO seems more appropriate.
Additional Opinions?
What it does is protect those hog farms that have been in existence for years against some person representing an animal rights organization that wants us to eat salad for a main meal to buy an acre next door and sue to shut it down because of the odors.
That's the thing with this question. This guy is with the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee, he's not some HSUS shill. Where he went with part of this made me wonder if he worked for Clinton, because it sounded like world class spin. But I don't really think he understands it either. I've yet to find anybody that does or any website that can shed light on precisely what this does and who it does it for. All I hear is a bunch of NO! or Yes!
I agree with his skepticism but I'm not sure he's on the mark. He mentioned the funding from the "Yes" crowd for billboards but failed to mention that HSUS is probably pouring at least twice as much in here for the "No" ads on TV. I don't know whether he's right in that OSC would read that double negative BS like he was saying or not. These state questions just stink, I really just wish they'd pass an actual law instead of getting the public's "permission" to regulate which is kind of what this is. If you want to ask me, freaking ask me specifically with your statute and I'll decide, IOW give me something to read. In a lot of cases these state questions are what they do when they think they ain't got the juice to get something passed, so the punt it to us.
One thing that is consistent is that OK legislators never cease to amaze me in how crapily they can write stuff. Look at our knife laws, I've been waiting 30 years and they've finally improved them a bit. Before they were so grey a LEO could arrest and a DA could prosecute on any number of angles and probably get a jury to convict.
Amen to THAT!!!!
