Prop B and SB 113
My job descriptions requires me to represent the will of the people in accordance with the law all in a sole effort to protect our individual freedoms.
Please read the full note. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts.
I voted to accept the changes to prop B that were proposed in SB 113 after following the both bills closely.
I don’t want to disappoint you and I hope that after you read my note you will understand why I cast my vote the way I did.
Let me start out by saying that SB113 is not a repeal of Prop B. SB113 is a compromise which respects the will of the people to protect dogs while also protecting the rights of the individuals who choose to breed them. Last November 51.6% of the voters passed Prop B. The stated reason for the bill was to protect dogs. SB113 actually increases the funding and enforcement of Prop B, and does not weaken any penalties for violating it.
What SB113 does repeal is the unconstitutional and arbitrary limitation of 50 dogs per breeder. This is the single most important aspect of the debate. SB113 brings up a bigger issue than the protection of dogs. It asks the question “What is the proper role of government?”
According to Missouri’s constitution, “All persons have a natural right to the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry…that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design. (Art 1, Sec 2)”
The fundamental role of government is to “give security” to the rights of its individual citizens. Prop B limits an individual’s right to own property. No one, not the legislature, and not a majority of citizens, has the right to vote away the constitutional liberties of another individual. It was my sworn duty, in order to uphold the constitution and to defend the individual rights of all Missourians.
If you voted for Prop B because you wanted to protect dogs, SB113 does exactly what you wanted, and now it has a better funding mechanism to pay for it and we did it without raising taxes.
For the other side who voted against Prop B, SB113 is a good bill that protects both dogs and their breeders.
Rest assured I will vote to protect your individual rights.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this any further. There are other issues that are being considered and I am working with one of the co- authors of the proposition , to pre-file some bills that protect both animals and children. I hope that my continued efforts on behalf of animal welfare will keep you confident in my concern about this ongoing issue.
Freedom Favors the Brave,
Paul Curtman
If you suspect someone is operating an illegal puppy mill and want to help us shut them down, you can report unlicensed breeders to state officials at from operation bark alert at:
http://mda.mo.gov/animals/ACFA/barkalert/reportbreeder.php
Please read the full note. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts.
I voted to accept the changes to prop B that were proposed in SB 113 after following the both bills closely.
I don’t want to disappoint you and I hope that after you read my note you will understand why I cast my vote the way I did.
Let me start out by saying that SB113 is not a repeal of Prop B. SB113 is a compromise which respects the will of the people to protect dogs while also protecting the rights of the individuals who choose to breed them. Last November 51.6% of the voters passed Prop B. The stated reason for the bill was to protect dogs. SB113 actually increases the funding and enforcement of Prop B, and does not weaken any penalties for violating it.
What SB113 does repeal is the unconstitutional and arbitrary limitation of 50 dogs per breeder. This is the single most important aspect of the debate. SB113 brings up a bigger issue than the protection of dogs. It asks the question “What is the proper role of government?”
According to Missouri’s constitution, “All persons have a natural right to the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry…that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design. (Art 1, Sec 2)”
The fundamental role of government is to “give security” to the rights of its individual citizens. Prop B limits an individual’s right to own property. No one, not the legislature, and not a majority of citizens, has the right to vote away the constitutional liberties of another individual. It was my sworn duty, in order to uphold the constitution and to defend the individual rights of all Missourians.
If you voted for Prop B because you wanted to protect dogs, SB113 does exactly what you wanted, and now it has a better funding mechanism to pay for it and we did it without raising taxes.
For the other side who voted against Prop B, SB113 is a good bill that protects both dogs and their breeders.
Rest assured I will vote to protect your individual rights.
Please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this any further. There are other issues that are being considered and I am working with one of the co- authors of the proposition , to pre-file some bills that protect both animals and children. I hope that my continued efforts on behalf of animal welfare will keep you confident in my concern about this ongoing issue.
Freedom Favors the Brave,
Paul Curtman
If you suspect someone is operating an illegal puppy mill and want to help us shut them down, you can report unlicensed breeders to state officials at from operation bark alert at:
http://mda.mo.gov/animals/ACFA/barkalert/reportbreeder.php
