I'm confused on some PA laws?

[Pickensandchigs]

Our own history, in the 1920s, says otherwise. Current events - you can read them in last century's paper.

This is about what the law *IS* - not what should be.

I was offering logical solutions to the tyranny some people with chickens might face.

 

[Pickensandchigs]

Actually, the founders were very much in favor of small local government. Towns, neighborhoods, municipalities, creating and maintaining law for those residents who could be directly involved. They were much more in favor of this than state or federal government (except the Federalists of course). They were not in opposition to any government, they were NOT anarchists, they were in favor of small, local government. Since there will always be people who want to keep chickens, as long as government stays local (which it won't, but that is a different discussion), there will always be those who form local governments that allow this.

Don't move to New York of you don't want government overreach.

I'm not talking about zoning laws regarding chicken farms.. I'm talking about the banning of a person keeping food on their property.

What about live crawfish.. are those ok?

You might find that the above supreme court ruling doesn't apply to food, chickens in this case.

When you refer to anarchy.. Excuse me please, are you referring to keeping chickens?

Again, I am suggesting civil disobedience agaisnt the tyrannical rules against keeping food on your property.

 

[DParker75089]

I was offering logical solutions

No, you really weren't.

I'm not talking about zoning laws regarding chicken farms.. I'm talking about the banning of a person keeping food on their property.

There is no ban as general as a prohibition on anyone "keeping food on their property". There is a restriction on the keeping of certain live animals. That some of them may be and are used as food does not constitute a ban on keeping food.

What about live crawfish.. are those ok?

Sure, unless.the statute says otherwise.

You might find that the above supreme court ruling doesn't apply to food, chickens in this case.

If you have any understanding of legal language, or basic English for that matter, this...

"some relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare."

...strongly suggests that the ruling would cover things like zoning ordinances controlling where some animals may be kept, as that would tend to involve things like public health and, in many cases, the general welfare of the public.

 

[Alagirl]

You're 30 years too late to complain.
If those are the terms and conditions of living in a certain area, abide or move.

well, it was quite unpopular to own chickens in urban settings.
Now look where we are!
those things can be changed if enough people want that!

 

[nuthatched]

well, it was quite unpopular to own chickens in urban settings.
Now look where we are!
those things can be changed if enough people want that!

Peacocks don't produce like chickens, they don't really have a legitimate reason to be kept that could hold up in court.
More people have been gaslighted into believing animal husbandry/ farming is cruel than there are those who know better, most people who push for chicken keeping just have them for 'likes and up votes", or "emotional support pets". they couldn't bare the thought of culling one, even when necessary, or eating one of their "precious babies". Oregon is a prime example, a mostly agricultural state, ruled by the mostly out of touch yuppies in Portland. They're trying to criminalize any one who raises animals for meat or for milk, claiming 'unconsentual touching of sex organs' or some trop like that, not realizing that an unmilked cow can be in great pain, even splitting her bag if not milked. TLDR, people who want livestock, don't treat them as livestock and those morons have the lawmakers in their pockets.

 

[Pickensandchigs]

No, you really weren't.

Yes I was. I suggested ignoring an unjust rule. This is a logical solution.. this type of solution has worked for many issues like this.

You don't despise the tyranny... You despise anyone who says it's wrong.

 

[Pickensandchigs]

There is no ban as general as a prohibition on anyone "keeping food on their property". There is a restriction on the keeping of certain live animals. That some of them may be and are used as food does not constitute a ban on keeping food.

I was referring to chickens when I said food, professor.

I don't know if you realize this, but chickens are made of food.

 

[DParker75089]

You don't despise the tyranny... You despise anyone who says it's wrong.

You talk a lot based on nothing but ignorance and baseless assumptions.

I was referring to chickens when I said food, professor.

I don't know if you realize this, but chickens are made of food.

Yes, I know you were talking about chickens. Now, see if you can get someone to explain the meaning of the qualifier "general" and the phrase "That some of them may be and are used as food" to you before making any more ridiculous comments.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

I was offering logical solutions to the tyranny some people with chickens might face.

While civil disobedience has had some noted successes in this country, mostly it just results in the accumulation of significant fines, and in some jurisdictions, the seizure of the flock.

If it suits you, and you are willing to do the time, go ahead and do the crime. That, at least, I can respect. But don't think to wiggle out with a claim that your birds are merely food wandered out from the refrigerator, or that the local courthouse is flying a Flag of Admiralty and holds no jurisdiction... Those claims don't have a snowball's chance in Phlegethia of letting you skate free. Advice to the contrary is irresponsible.

As I said above, better off buying your representative lunch in an effort to buy a vote. Influence peddling is as old as politics, predating humanity. Unlikely to change anytime soon. Barring that, run for local office - those elections tend to have very low participation, and can be influenced by strong personalities with a large enough circle of friends and associates actually participating in the franchise.

 

[U_Stormcrow]

before making any more ridiculous comments.

That would be inconsistent with their time here on BYC thus far.