September 26, 2011

Any chance courts might say the West Hollywood ban on selling fur violates the Constitution?

Only in Ilya Somin's dreams:
If the law is challenged, judges will probably conclude that there is at least some “rational basis” for it, such as the need to protect fur-bearing animals from overhunting. Nor will it matter that the law bans the sale of fur clothing, but permits the sale of leather items. Such distinctions are also subject only to minimal scrutiny. Nonetheless, the debate over this case and others like it could help increase public awareness of the need to enforce constitutional protections for economic liberty.

26 comments:

E.M. Davis said...

I am waiting for Peter to weigh in on this.

Fred4Pres said...

We have banned certain furs for many decades without challenge. I cannot see someone like...say Thomas, saying this law was unconstitutional. He might say it was silly and stupid, but unconstitutional?

Maybe they can make a law linking fur sales and say...sodomy in West Hollywood. Just to create a constitutional review issue!

timmaguire42 said...

The government regulates, restricts, and even bans the sale of a great many things. What's so special about furs that it's getting written about in the blogosphere?

edutcher said...

This law is to curry favor with the enviro-nuts and it probably doesn't do much, if anything, to preserve "endangered species".

Of course, what court is hearing the case turns it into a YMMV situation.

Carol_Herman said...

The animal's already dead.

As to "styles" ... where mink coat gave way to sables ... And, foxes used to adorn hollywood stars ... (My mom would say the fur looked better on the living animal. But you couldn't trust them to be pets.)

Other than that?

I live in Southern California. Recently, and for the first time, I bought a sweater made of wool. When I brought it home, I wrapped it up tight. And, put it inside the refrigerator. Otherwise, all it would have been is a happy meal for moths.

Back east,you bet. Fur keeps you warm! Back in the 1950's a good mink coat cost ya about $10,000. And, a sable one about $20,000.

I remember a story or two about Bergdorf's.

First off, a woman in her brand new fur coat walks in thinking that the sales clerk would actually come over to her. (And, the clerks remained unresponsive.)

TWO: Someone noticed a woman trying on a very expensive mink coat. She was a very beautiful women, with a very ugly man as her "beau" ... who could afford the coat for her.

She was seen rubbing her fingers up and down the collar with such an orgasmic smile ... you'd have thought she was masturbating.

But then you realized the guy was so ugly she had to have the coat. Because it beat what she'd have to do later, in bed.

(I notice the wardrobe's changing, now, for you and Meade, in Wisconsin. It doesn't feel cold here at all. So it's a wonder to see the seasons in action.)

Dust Bunny Queen said...

So skin with hair ....No.

Skin without hair....OK

Back in the hippie dippie 60/70's I had a friend who had baked his brain one too many times with LSD/Pot and God knows what else.

He was determined that he could make big bucks at a concert by selling Irish Setter rugs, handbags and other accessories because the fur of Irish Setters was "just that beautiful". "I mean...MAN...just look at those beautiful red and gold colors. The fur is so soft and who wouldn't want to put their feet onto an Irish Setter rug."

No one could convince him it was a really REALLY bad idea. He owned two Irish Setters and we took them away from him. I have no idea what ultimately became of our friend, but I imagine it didn't turn out too well.

I hadn't thought about this in years. Woah.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Why settle for only boring old liberal judicial activism when you can have libertarian judicial activism along with?

traditionalguy said...

The law makes since, but the laws calling women "fur bearing animals" is not nice even if they are for sale.

traditionalguy said...

Phooey, I meant sense and not since.

And the old timers called them Fur Pieces. The foxes that is... not the women. Oh heck, this is harder to talk about than most things are.

Fred4Pres said...

Without getting all Freudian: Is Carol the woman rubbing the fur coat?

Regrets?

cubanbob said...

Isn't this law prohibiting interstate commerce?

As for the 'rational purpose' test that certainly would have to be tortured to make any sense. It's rational in West Hollywood but not in all of California or the rest of the United States? West Hollywood now decides the fur policy for then entire US?

The constitution certainly does not amending, to limit the powers of state and local governments as well as the federal government.

Fred4Pres said...

Dust Bunny Queen, so I assume taking your pal to a drive in to see a rescreening of 101 Dalmations was out of the question?

Ann Althouse said...

"The animal's already dead."

When my son Chris was pretty young, he thought killing animals for food should be a crime and the people who do that should go to prison. As for the meat in the store that we bought for dinner, that animal is already dead. I still find that kid-reasoning really funny.

Fred4Pres said...

Come to think of it, do I really want to know what Carol Herman did in her youth? Nevermind. Disregard my question above at 12:41.

Fred4Pres said...

A lot kids become vegetarians over killing animals. I totally understand it. I have no problem collecting oysters or smacking a fat fish over the head for the kitchen, but killing a chicken or cow gives me pause.

It is when you then impose those beliefs on others it becomes problematic.

Scott M said...

but killing a chicken or cow gives me pause.

Are you suggesting that you only wear shoes and belts made out of seafood?

traditionalguy said...

Eat Mor Chikin!

Michael said...

Fur bearing animal pelts are not derived from hunting but from farming. But I am all for the people of West Hollywood not having what they want.

Levi Starks said...

So If I were to replace the original fur that was on a piece of animal leather with artificial fur that would be fine?

Levi Starks said...

and some animals are "hairless" what are we going to do to protect them?

David said...

"West Hollywood’s ban on the sale of fur clothing is ultimately trivial because it will have little effect. Local residents who want to buy fur coats will simply drive to a neighboring town."

Yeah, but they felt so good when they passed the law.

David said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
So skin with hair ....No.

Skin without hair....OK


Another great nutshell by DBQ.

sorepaw said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PETER V. BELLA said...

Let's just raise some dough and open a fur store across the street from West Hollywood. That is how capitalism works.

Mick said...

Somin wouldn't know the Constitution if it bit him--- he doesn't even know that the POTUS is ineligible (or maybe he has been hushed by "racist" or "birther" labels). Come to think of it, even the "law prof" doesn't know, and even voted for the Usurper!!

ken in sc said...

Fred, if you ever keep chickens, you will get over that feeling about them at least. I have never met a chicken that did not deserve killing. They would kill and eat you if they could. They are true descendants of dinosaurs.