How convienent they don't mention what kind of animal or what exactly constitutes as 'harm'.
More communist propoganda from the tree huggers and PETAfiles.

Any law ever written has loopholes and room for argument/debate. Don't kid yourselves here.

I took the time to read the bill. It does grant equal status to humans and animals in cases of abuse.

It specifically grants exceptions for agricultural and veterinary purposes (Oddly - no specific exception for medical research or sport.) Gee - sounds like some animal activists at work on that clause.

The bill would criminalize "threats to commit animal abuse". e.g. If I threaten to shoot your dog because he keeps jumping through the fence into my hen house, then, under SB 162, I will have committed abuse and be subject to the loss of my firearm.

The sponsors are (insert surprise here) members of the "D" party, one of whom represents Madison - commonly known as "10 square miles surrounded by reality".

Animal abusers are sick, twisted people and should be prosecuted and counseled. Should they be permanently denied the right to own a weapon? - No. Should it be a temporary loss, regained after certain conditions are satisfied? - Yes.

SB 162 is an invitation and foothold for future absurd legislation from leftists. It's a bad bill and should be thrown in file 13.

Abort a child, hug a grizzly bear, that's the PETA way.

Morons.

Joshua,

The reason I will not stoop to your level is this.

I have read your posts many times before and seen how you misrepresent others and try to start arguments instead of intelligently debating things. IHYDS.

Joshua,
Does an animal have to be as intelligent as we are to be protected from abuse? Of course you could not charge them as humans. You have problems sir.

One other thing I would say. I am not in favor of this bill.

But if I were to see someone hit an animal or a person in the head with a bat. They would be hard pressed to escape anything less from me.

Give the Anti-gun crowd an inch and they'll take a mile.They won't stop until they remove our guns.PETA won't stop until hunting stops.Are we going to stand for it?

http://www.startribune.com/467/story/1442803.htmlKindly have a peek at this story which is not in Wisc but in neighboring Minn. It shows the "stupidity" of animal cruelty.I hope they throw the duck oooops book at him!!!!

up above the word "kindly" does not belong in the star-trib address,so goto this one........http://www.startribune.com/467/story/1442803.html

Hold on a sec. First of all, I am a paid environmentalist. I also hunt and fish (and used to trap back in the day). One of the things that continually ticks me off is lumping treehuggers in with animal rights activists, we ain't the same thing. For you folks that think we're just a bunch of pinko commies just remember that more than a few of us served our country in combat, used to patrol your streets keeping you safe and used to (or still) provided the food that you put on your table. Just like in all other forms of life, the loudest and most ignorant of us get the most attention.

That said, obviously all forms of animal cruelty (e.g. intentionally harming a pet) are wrong and those that perpetrate the acts deserve to be punished. However, I have serious difficulty believing that the good folks in Wisconsin would try and expand the scope of domestic violence to something like this.

Read the actual bill first http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/SB-162.pdf
before jumping to conclusions. The fact of the matter is that this is a law making process and more than likely the lawmakers who wrote this bill did not think about the potential consequences to gun rights and will now rectify that loophole. However, all that could have been done through a few meetings between NRA and legislators, instead the NRA tries to get us all worked up so they can hit us up for donations. I for one don't feel the need to make sure that Wayne LaPierre has an even bigger mansion in Washington D.C. (rich folks rarely have my best interests in mind).

Greg
Borden or Lucerne?
Sage Sam
You make a good point. There is a difference between "tree hugger" and "animal rights activist". If you would, please post your view of the differences. I ain't trying to be cute, I am truly interested! Sometimes perception is clouded by suspicion.

Bubba

I guess I'm a tree hugger because I want to preserve hunting and fishing territory rather than see it all become a masterplanned community or a series of strip malls.

As far as the anti abortion comment, I'm pro choice but that has nothing to do with this forum, so I won't get into it other than to say that jstreet, if you are a man, good for you. You will never have to make a choice in regards to abortion.

As far as animal rights, Both PETA and the other extreme (those that see animals as having no right) could both use a little common sense. Hunting, fishing, raising animals for food in an ethical manner? Yes. Putting perfume in their eyes to make sure it's safe for women, cockfighting, dog fighting, hitting a dog with a board because you have had a bad day? No.

I have not read this bill, but unless it is very specific as to what is and is not animal cruelty, then I would be uncomfortable with it.