Legal Quandary

Thursday, January 27, 2005

Studies in Legislation That Shouldn't Be Necessary, But Apparently Is

I'm all for anything that will keep poisonous snakes out of the hands of idiots. Snakes are bad. All of them. I don't care what they do for the environment, the ecosystem, or whatever. I.Hate.Snakes.

I think it's strange that it has to be against the law to have a pet pit viper. That someone would have a desire to own one in the first place falls right into the special kind of stupid category. The fact that they think it's ok "because they live near a hospital" is a clear indication that these guys are as dumb as a box of hair. But the last line says it all.

BISMARCK, N.D. - North Dakota's House has agreed to ban private ownership of poisonous snakes, responding to an incident in which two Bismarck men ordered deadly reptiles over the Internet and then showed them off.
Last July, police found four deadly snakes in a Bismarck apartment. Andrew Greff and Doug Feist were charged with misdemeanor reckless endangerment.

The men told authorities they felt safe with the snakes because they lived near a hospital, where they could go if they were bitten.

"These individuals had taken these snakes to at least one school, under the false premise of getting them identified," Wrangham said. "They knew what they were. They just took them there so they had an excuse to show people what they had."

After the snake incident, Greff lost his left arm in a pipe bomb explosion.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

Links to this post:

Create a Link