California Assembly Bill AB44

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/3/18
• Refer: 1/17/19
• Report Pass: 2/25/19
• Refer: 2/26/19
• Report Pass: 3/12/19
• Refer: 3/14/19
• Report Pass: 4/1/19
• Refer: 4/3/19
• Refer: 4/10/19
• Report Pass: 5/16/19
• Engrossed: 5/28/19
• Refer: 5/29/19
• Refer: 6/6/19
• Report Pass: 6/14/19
• Refer: 6/14/19
• Report Pass: 6/25/19
• Refer: 6/25/19
• Report Pass: 6/27/19
• Refer: 6/27/19
• Report Pass: 7/10/19
• Refer: 7/10/19
• Refer: 8/12/19
• Report Pass: 8/30/19
• Enrolled: 9/11/19
• Chaptered: 10/12/19
• Passed: 10/12/19

Caption

Fur products: prohibition.

Impact

The enforcement of AB 44 is set to significantly alter the state's approach to fur trading and animal rights. By prohibiting the sale of fur products, California will join a select group of states that have implemented similar restrictions, potentially influencing legislative actions in other states. The bill emphasizes compliance and enforcement, creating civil penalties for violations and establishing a dedicated fund for wildlife protection initiatives. The changes are intended to promote ecological awareness and consumer responsibility regarding animal welfare.

Summary

Assembly Bill 44, introduced by Assemblymember Friedman, aims to prohibit the sale and manufacture of fur products within California. This legislation reflects a growing movement nationwide to protect animal rights and regulate industries that utilize animal products. The bill proposes to make it unlawful to sell, display, or distribute fur products, with specific exceptions for used items or those permitted under federal law. The bill's primary intention is to align with ongoing efforts to enhance animal welfare by reducing the demand for fur.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 44 is largely supportive from animal welfare advocates, who argue that it represents a step toward humane treatment of animals. Proponents believe the bill addresses ethical concerns related to the fur industry, emphasizing the need for regulatory changes that reflect modern values concerning animal rights. Conversely, opponents of the bill, including some fur retailers and manufacturers, argue that it infringes on personal freedom and economic opportunity, presenting concerns about the impact on jobs and traditional cultural practices involving fur.

Contention

A notable point of contention arises from the exemptions included in the bill, which allow for the sale of used fur products and items for cultural or religious purposes. These provisions aim to balance the enforcement of animal rights with the rights of individuals and communities that partake in traditional practices involving fur. As a result, the debate surrounding AB 44 encapsulates broader discussions on ethics in consumerism, cultural heritage, and the legal frameworks needed to support both animal rights and economic diversity.