Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Gloucester, VA - Readers Respond To Animal Control Law Section 3-15 - Is It Legal?

One of the people who responded early to the national survey on whether or not Gloucester, VA law , Section 3-15 is even a legal law has quoted some further interesting information and leaves some clues that they have a much higher knowledge of law than they originally stated.  The following is a new message that they have left.  We still see legal problems with their comments.

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Gloucester, VA - Animal Control Law 3-15 Early Res...": 

From your "yes" voter ... I referenced that State law supports the local law. SPECIFICALLY see 3.2-6503 which mimics local law. If you have a problem, you are barking up the wrong tree:

§ 3.2-6503. Care of companion animals by owner; penalty.

A. Each owner shall provide for each of his companion animals:

1. Adequate feed;

2. Adequate water;

3. Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned;

4. Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;

5. Adequate exercise;

6. Adequate care, treatment, and transportation; and

7. Veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or disease transmission.

The provisions of this section shall also apply to every pound, animal shelter, or other releasing agency, and every foster care provider, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.

B. Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of subdivision A 1, A 2, A 3, or A 7 is a Class 2 misdemeanor and a second or subsequent violation of subdivision A 4, A 5, or A 6 is a Class 3 misdemeanor.
                                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                           

This is an updated argument and we want to thank the person who sent this.  However, we are still arguing that 3-15 is not being properly used in Gloucester, VA by Animal Control.  Section 3-15 is not supported as a law that can be adopted by a locality as further evidenced through state law 3.2-6543.

Sec. 3-15.  Failure to perform duties of ownership; penalty.
(a)       Each owner or custodian of an animal shall provide for each of his animals all the following as defined in section 3.2-6500 of the Code of Virginia:
(1)       Adequate feed;
(2)       Adequate water;
(3)       Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned and sanitized;
(4)       Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;
(5)       Adequate exercise;
(6)       Adequate care, treatment and transportation; and
(7)       Veterinary care when needed for disease control or to prevent suffering or disease transmission.
The provisions of this section shall apply to an owner or custodian of any animal, fowl, or reptile, including every private owner, animal shelter, pound, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.
(b)       Game and wildlife species shall be cared for in accordance with current regulations promulgated by the Virginia Department of Games and Inland Fisheries.
            (c)        Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
I like this person's argument as it shows us where the flaw in our own argument stands.  That required us to re write our survey to ask the correct question.  Let's look at Virginia Code 3.2-6503 a little closer.  It states that it''s a penalty.  What is the penalty?  A class 4 misdemeanor charge.  It does not show where the violation stems from but only a broad definition of what has been violated and that the penalty for the violation is a class 4 misdemeanor.  3.2-6500 of the Virginia code only defines terminology, or gives definitions to terms used.  However, it could logically be argued that the definition of terms is the source of origin.  New problem though is this.  Virginia law section 3.2-6543 provides the following.  

A. The governing body of any locality of the Commonwealth may adopt, and make more stringent, ordinances that parallel §§ 3.2-6521 through 3.2-65393.2-6546 through 3.2-65553.2-65623.2-65693.2-65703.2-6574 through 3.2-6580, and 3.2-6585 through 3.2-6590. Any town may choose to adopt by reference any ordinance of the surrounding county adopted under this section to be applied within its town limits, in lieu of adopting an ordinance of its own.   

Logo Package

We would like to note that 3.2-6503 is not part of what a county may adopt and or make more stringent according to Virginia State law 3.2-6543 
With that said, how can Gloucester Animal Control law 3-15 that parallel's 3.2-6503 then be considered legal if Virginia state law does not permit it to be adopted and or paralleled as shown above?   It was a sound sounding argument as long as you did not dig deeper into state laws.  I'm going to give that person a free pass here as they said they were not a legal professional and I want to thank that person for further input.  It helped us clarify our survey and our argument.  And as we like to note, we are not attorney's and this is not to be considered legal advice.  Only an attorney can advice you.  We are not trying to practice law on this site.  We are only questioning what we are seeing.

The following is the survey, updated to reflect the proper context of our arguments.




For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 comment:

  1. Me again. I think the discussion is moving in the correct direction. I would suggest that the intent of 6543 is to permit local governments to adopt AND make more stringent ordinances that parallel the sections listed. Localities may adopt parallel ordinances for all of the code so long as they are not more stringent. In fact, they do not need to do so because the locality could simply rely on the state code to file charges. Adopting codes locally serves to make ordinances overall more clear and transparent so a citizen does not have to navigate a few applicable ordinances in local law (that in this case are permitted to be more stringent) and a few from state law never really knowing if they have observed all laws.

    So, I continue to maintain that if you do not like the ordinance, your beef should be with the state, not the locality. This is particularly true in Virginia given it is a "Dillon Rule" state.

    I trust this information is useful.

    ReplyDelete

Thank You for taking the time to comment on this article. Please note, we moderate every comment before we allow it to post. Comments do not show up right away because of this.