Prohibited.............




Val

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2003
Messages
1,317
Reaction score
4
It's the lunatic fringe San Francisco bleeding heart liberals at work. Unfortunately, they basically rule the State politics. One of their preschoolers was probably offended when he heard about it so theybanned them. These people are against the death penalty but third tri-mester abortions are just fine. Logic is not something that governs their actions.
 

larrysogla

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
3,068
Reaction score
23
There is a kangaroo court in San Francisco run by these non-sensical judges, hence the prohibition on Kangaroo leather. They don't like competition of any sort. 'Nuff said.
 

spectr17

Administrator
Admin
Joined
Mar 11, 2001
Messages
69,584
Reaction score
454
One other goofy law here in CA. You can order a .45 pistol but you cannot mail order a blowgun to be delivered into CA.

Too many drive by blowgun shootings I guess.
 

kilbuc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2001
Messages
216
Reaction score
0
Hey, it's CA so no reason needed.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"
 

cavey

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2002
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
1
I think it is to protect the remaining resident population of California Kangaroos, from what I have heard they have been driven to the brink of extinction by the illicit trade of these types of boots. It’s a real shame, back when the pioneers first settled Old Cali there were millions of them roaming the hills....
 

ducslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
1,074
Reaction score
0
"Heres one", Cabelas has a great o/u cap gun .A great teaching aid for my Grandsons,well they wont ship it to Calif
 

tmoniz

Banned
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
1
Let's face it. It's California. And, let's not bang on the Sixties generation too hard. I have a feeling many of us were part of that. I had long hair and was against the war so I joined the Coast Guard.

This one is a bit odd though.
 

Rancho Loco

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Messages
5,546
Reaction score
0
653o. (a) It is unlawful to import into this state for commercial
purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the
state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of any
alligator, crocodile, polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah,
jaguar, sable antelope, wolf ( Canis lupus), zebra, whale, cobra,
python, sea turtle, colobus monkey, kangaroo, vicuna, sea otter,
free-roaming feral horse, dolphin or porpoise (Delphinidae), Spanish
lynx, or elephant.
Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not less than one
thousand dollars ($1,000) and not to exceed five thousand dollars
($5,000) or imprisonment in the county jail for not to exceed six
months, or both such fine and imprisonment, for each violation.
(b) The prohibitions against importation for commercial purposes,
possession with intent to sell, and sale of the species listed in
this section are severable. A finding of the invalidity of any one
or more prohibitions shall not affect the validity of any remaining
prohibitions.
 

Rancho Loco

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Messages
5,546
Reaction score
0
Metropolitan News-Enterprise



Tuesday, November 22, 2005



Page 1



Court of Appeal Sides With Adidas, Strikes Down Ban on Importation of Kangaroo Products



By a MetNews Staff Writer



A 35-year-old state law banning importation of kangaroo products into California is preempted to the extent it conflicts with federal law allowing such products to be imported into the United States, the First District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday.

The court affirmed a San Francisco Superior Court judge’s order granting summary judgment to companies that sell athletic shoes containing kangaroo leather, including Sports Chalet and a subsidiary of the German manufacturer Adidas.

A Yolo County-based vegetarian group and a Los Angeles County resident sued the companies, alleging that the sales violated Penal Code Sec. 653 and thus constituted an unlawful business practice.

The defendants argued that the state law only applies to endangered species, while the three species of kangaroos whose hides are used to make the defendants’ shoes have been removed from the endangered species list; that the ban conflicts with federal law and policy allowing kangaroos products into the United States in exchange for Australian government efforts to control the kangaroo population, which the government estimates at 57 million; and that state prohibition of imports violates the Commerce Clause.

The trial judge rejected the endangered species argument, granted summary judgment on the preemption claim, and did not rule on the Commerce Clause issue.

Presiding Justice James Marchiano, writing for Div. One of the Court of Appeal, said the trial judge was correct.

He cited a provision of the Endangered Species Act reading:

“Any State law or regulation which applies with respect to the importation or exportation of, or interstate or foreign commerce in, endangered species or threatened species is void to the extent that it may effectively (1) permit what is prohibited by this chapter or by any regulation which implements this chapter, or (2) prohibit what is authorized pursuant to an exemption or permit provided for in this chapter or in any regulation which implements this chapter.”

This provision, the justice noted, has been interpreted as allowing a state to ban importation of products whose importation has not been approved under federal law. But where federal law has permitted importation of a product under certain conditions, the state law has been held invalid to the extent it prohibits what the federal law permits.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the delisting of the three species places the issue outside the scope of federal law, and thus avoids the preemption question, is “not unreasonable,” Marchiano said, but gives “insufficient attention” to the rule that state law is preempted if it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objections of Congress.”

For more than 20 years, the presiding justice explained, the United States and Australia have cooperated with regard to the issue of kangaroo conservation, with this country employing a “proverbial carrot and stick policy” allowing Australia to avoid a ban on imports by implementing population management programs.

Since the programs for the three species at issue in the case have been approved by the Fish & Wildlife Service, Marchiano explained, importation of products made from those species is permitted by federal law. To apply the state ban to such products, he concluded, conflicts with the federal policy and is thus prohibited.

The case is Viva! International Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc., A106960.
 

Rancho Loco

Banned
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Messages
5,546
Reaction score
0
Metropolitan News-Enterprise



Thursday, March 2, 2006



Page 1



S.C. to Rule on State Ban on Importing Kangaroo Products



By KENNETH OFGANG, Staff Writer



The California Supreme Court yesterday agreed to decide whether 35-year-old legislation banning importation of kangaroo products into the state is preempted by federal law.

The justices, at their weekly conference in San Francisco, voted unanimously to grant review in Viva! International Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc., A106960. The First District Court of Appeal ruled on Nov. 22 that Penal Code Sec. 653 is invalid because federal law expressly allows such products to be imported into the United States.

That ruling affirmed a San Francisco Superior Court judge’s order granting summary judgment to companies that sell athletic shoes containing kangaroo leather, including Sports Chalet and a subsidiary of the German manufacturer Adidas.

A Yolo County-based vegetarian group and a Los Angeles County resident sued the companies, alleging that the sales violated the Penal Code section and thus constituted an unlawful business practice.

The defendants argued that the state law only applies to endangered species, while the three species of kangaroos whose hides are used to make the defendants’ shoes have been removed from the endangered species list; that the ban conflicts with federal law and policy allowing kangaroos products into the United States in exchange for Australian government efforts to control the kangaroo population, which the government estimates at 57 million; and that state prohibition of imports violates the Commerce Clause.

Summary Judgment Granted

The trial judge rejected the endangered species argument, granted summary judgment on the preemption claim, and did not rule on the Commerce Clause issue.

Presiding Justice James Marchiano, writing for Div. One of the Court of Appeal, said the trial judge was correct.

The Endangered Species Act, Marchiano explained, has been interpreted as allowing a state to ban importation of products whose importation has not been approved under federal law. But where federal law has permitted importation of a product under certain conditions, the state law has been held invalid to the extent it prohibits what the federal law permits, the presiding jurist said.

The plaintiffs’ contention that the delisting of the three species places the issue outside the scope of federal law, and thus avoids the preemption question, is “not unreasonable,” Marchiano said, but gives “insufficient attention” to the rule that state law is preempted if it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objections of Congress.”

For more than 20 years, the presiding justice explained, the United States and Australia have cooperated with regard to the issue of kangaroo conservation, with this country employing a “proverbial carrot and stick policy” allowing Australia to avoid a ban on imports by implementing population management programs.

Federal Policy Cited

Since the programs for the three species at issue in the case have been approved by the Fish & Wildlife Service, Marchiano explained, importation of products made from those species is permitted by federal law. To apply the state ban to such products, he concluded, conflicts with the federal policy and is thus prohibited.

In other conference action, the justices:

•Agreed to review the “one-strike” sentence imposed on a Northern California man who impregnated his 13-year-old stepdaughter, resulting in an abortion.

Gary Wendell Cross is serving a 21-year-to-life sentence after being convicted of non-forcible oral copulation and committing a non-forcible lewd act on a child under 14, including a 15-year-to-life enhancement for causing great bodily injury.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, concluding that the victim’s late-term abortion constituted “great bodily injury” and that the defendant “personally inflict[ed]” the injury within the meaning of the statute. The high court said it would review both of those holdings.

The vote to take the case was 5-2, with Justices Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin in the minority. It was the first conference in which Chin, who recently had surgery, has participated in several weeks.

•Agreed to decide whether assault with a firearm is a lesser included offense of shooting from a vehicle. The Fourth District’s Div. Three held in People v. Licas, G034891, that it was not.
 

Orygun

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Messages
7,276
Reaction score
67
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I want my Roo shoes[/b]
Had a couple pairs of addidas cleats for football made from the pleather kangaroo. Cheap in price but easily outlasted more expensive leather cleats in the Pacific NW Rains. Tough critters, them pleather kangas
 

Orygun

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Messages
7,276
Reaction score
67
When your extremely anti gun in most of the metro areas it makes sense. Air guns a great way to introduce children to firearms. Make it near impossible/impossible to have access to air guns and it becomes harder to convince children that guns aren't evil. At least that's what the gun hating bunch think.
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
Thanks Rancho for the law. Amazing. They look pretty comfortable...makes me want to try them on.

 


Top Bottom