We have a patchwork framework right now where the States, some have stepped up and recognized the responsibility and the danger to their citizens and have outlawed it. Others are starting to move in this direction and have some registration, for example.
But what we do with this legislation is provide a framework so that it is possible to actually have some enforcement. But what I mentioned in terms of the analogy, and I am sorry I wasn’t clear to my friend from Georgia, that when you don’t have a framework, when States are free to do whatever they want and you can transport things across State borders, it undercuts the abilities of the States that are trying to protect their citizens like with animal fighting.
You see, in the minds of the supporters of this bill, everything under the sun is under the jurisdiction of the United States Congress. The States are relegated to minor status merely supporting the policies of the much smarter and more caring members of the House and Senate.
Have any of these accomplished legislators ever heard of the 10th Amendment? I would say “yes” since they craft this bill as a “Interstate Commerce” bill instead of the micro-management of the States which it is.
But although they lip service to the Amendment, their discussions make clear that the actual purpose is the banning of the possession of Primates as pet, which the States are more than capable of addressing if they choose to. But the august members of the House do not think the States or the people are capable of managing their own lives without input from them.