This is the bill in its amended form scroll down to see what else is involved in this bill. It is sandwiched in with sex offenders and parolee violators and all kinds of legislation. I don't write propaganda nor do I promote it. I do know what is happening in my state and a few others.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/.../HB1468.1.html

It looks to me that the bill (the bold type) only refers to the animal provisions...and is incorporated into existing state code (not bold) that has other references.

SO its false to suggest the bill was "sandwiched in" with sex offenders and parolee violators, other than being in the same section of state code. Thats hardly the same as suggesting the bill was considered as part of some "underhanded" plan to have it considered with bills on sex offenders.

HOUSE BILL No. 1468


A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.

I am not sure you can read at this point Redux but anyone can go to that link and see the bill. I don't see my statement as false.

Read the preface please:

Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this style type.
Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.

The section on sex offenders or parolees was existing provisions of the code.

The actual bill (or amendment to the state code) was those sections in bold type.

Only one sentence of the bill refers to "parolees may be prohibited from owning or training pets..." and included in that section of the code.

The rest of the bill is in an entirely different section of the state code.

You see how easy it is to make it propaganda and falsely suggest that the bill was somehow "sandwiched in" with a bill on sex offenders or parolees when that was not the case?

That statement is just as false and misleading as the statement suggesting that pet dealers would be regulated as kennels or commercial breeders.

Ah so that was my mistake. Here let me amend it; they included this bill sandwiched in the existing state code that refers to parolees and sex offenders. BTW have the last word I am sure you want it....;)

Look at the code sections.

The bulk of the bill (with the exception of one sentence) is in an entirely different section and chapter of the state code (IC 15-21) from the parolees/sex offenders (IC 11-13)

There is no sandwich here :)

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL1753176M/...umane-movement
:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...erest_Alliance

:)

Propaganda to the left of us....propaganda to the right of us. :eek:

Thats all I'm suggesting.

Is it propaganda when Oprah adopts rescue dogs and they are disease ridden? Rescue does not = the best place to get a dog. [Point of thread]

http://www.peoplepets.com/news/pets-...tens-another/1

On this, we agree!

lol.

The problem is not how many cats and dogs are euthanized, the problem is we don't eat them.

You can't fool us. You are Bill Clinton aren't you.

Nirvana, to all your posts in this thread:

:thumb: