#2 2014-11-05 17:05:23
You can still shoot them, but not feed them first. Chumming has always been illegal.
Offline
#3 2014-11-05 17:35:53
Everyone knows better than to feed the pigeons, bears or homeless; it just encourages them and draws more of them. I have to admit that I wouldn't like the feeding of the homeless in our local parks, they will just hang around afterwards and shit everywhere.
And sadly that last bit is all too true...
Offline
#4 2014-11-05 18:31:18
See, this is the difference between Florida and California. In liberal California, it is politically incorrect to pass a law forbidding feeding the homeless. The preferred method is to pass onerous zoning and health rules which make it absolutely impossible to prepare and serve a meal in public without filing the proper forms, obtaining the proper certifications, compliance with land use rules, commercial kitchen rules, health department regulations, and stiff license fees.
Offline
#5 2014-11-05 18:57:55
phreddy wrote:
See, this is the difference between Florida and California. In liberal California, it is politically incorrect to pass a law forbidding feeding the homeless. The preferred method is to pass onerous zoning and health rules which make it absolutely impossible to prepare and serve a meal in public without filing the proper forms, obtaining the proper certifications, compliance with land use rules, commercial kitchen rules, health department regulations, and stiff license fees.
Like abortion in Texas, you mean?
Offline
#6 2014-11-06 14:06:30
Tall Paul wrote:
phreddy wrote:
See, this is the difference between Florida and California. In liberal California, it is politically incorrect to pass a law forbidding feeding the homeless. The preferred method is to pass onerous zoning and health rules which make it absolutely impossible to prepare and serve a meal in public without filing the proper forms, obtaining the proper certifications, compliance with land use rules, commercial kitchen rules, health department regulations, and stiff license fees.
Like abortion in Texas, you mean?
Not exactly. The Texans are up front about attempting to ban abortion. California's leaders, especially those running California's affluent cities, are duplicitous hypocrites.
Offline
#7 2014-11-07 04:26:54
phreddy wrote:
Tall Paul wrote:
phreddy wrote:
See, this is the difference between Florida and California. In liberal California, it is politically incorrect to pass a law forbidding feeding the homeless. The preferred method is to pass onerous zoning and health rules which make it absolutely impossible to prepare and serve a meal in public without filing the proper forms, obtaining the proper certifications, compliance with land use rules, commercial kitchen rules, health department regulations, and stiff license fees.
Like abortion in Texas, you mean?
Not exactly. The Texans are up front about attempting to ban abortion. California's leaders, especially those running California's affluent cities, are duplicitous hypocrites.
That's not what they say:
Republican backers of the bill say that it protects women's health by forcing abortion providers to meet higher standards. They said the case of Kermit Gosnell, the illegal abortion provider in Philadelphia who was recently convicted of murder, shows the new rules are necessary. The bill's supporters also point to recent public polling that suggests a majority of Texans favor a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, which account for less than 2 percent of abortions in the state.
Offline
