by John M. Simpson.<\/p>\n
On September 18, 2018, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved a motion that directs the City Attorney to prepare a city ordinance whose proponents believe will prohibit the manufacture and sale of fur products within the City of Los Angeles.\u00a0\u00a0 Although hailed as a “fur ban” by animal activists, the actual Council action was the approval of a motion<\/a> that directs the City Attorney\u00a0to:<\/p>\n “prepare and present an Ordinance to which [sic] would prohibit the manufacture and sale of fur products, including apparel made in whole or in part of fur, or any fashion accessory, including\u00a0 but not limited to handbags, shoes, hats, earmuffs, jewelry and key chains made in whole or in part of fur, with exceptions for the sale of used fur products with a phasing-out period of 24 months from the effective date of the Ordinance.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Council also directed the City Attorney to report on the following subjects:<\/p>\n “a.\u00a0\u00a0 Utilization of fur apparel by religious organizations and related religious aspects and potential exemptions.<\/p>\n b.\u00a0\u00a0 Prohibiting the sale of faux fur that utilizes the fur of an animal(s) and methods to certify the origin of said faux fur.<\/p>\n c.\u00a0\u00a0 Potential conflicts with Federal and State laws as they relate to the sale of fur products.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Thus, the details of the actual ordnance remain to be worked out.\u00a0 To become law, the ordinance will have to be approved by the Council and signed by the Mayor.<\/p>\n One of\u00a0the most significant issues to be considered as the proposed law moves forward is the extent to which this city ordinance would conflict with federal or state law.\u00a0 At the federal level are potential\u00a0“dormant commerce clause” issues which can\u00a0arise with respect to state or local laws that attempt to prohibit\u00a0the sale of items manufactured elsewhere and shipped into the state which has\u00a0the ban.\u00a0 But apart from a potential federal\u00a0 constitutional conflict, a report<\/a> by the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) noted a conflict with California state\u00a0law.\u00a0 The three other California localities with fur bans (West Hollywood, Berkeley and San Francisco) all have exclusions for fur products made from trapped animals.\u00a0 This is because the California Fish and Game Code “allows the purchase and sale of products or handicraft items made from furbearing mammals and nongame mammals lawfully taken under the authority of a trapping license.”\u00a0 See<\/em> Cal. Fish & Game Code, \u00a7 3039(b)<\/a> (“Products or handicraft items made from furbearing mammals and nongame mammals lawfully taken under the authority of a trapping license may be purchased or sold at any time”).\u00a0\u00a0 A ban on fur items coming within this exclusion would require an amendment to the Fish & Game Code which the Council does not have the authority to do.<\/p>\n The CLA also noted that, given the trapping exemption in the Fish & and Game Code,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 “[o]ne particularly difficult feature of enforcing the ban” will be traceability:\u00a0 “The City of Los Angeles would have to come up with a verification process to ensure that fur products are made from fur harvested from animals that were trapped legally within the State of California.”\u00a0\u00a0 In this regard, it should be noted that the plain language of the Fish & Game Code exclusion is not limited to fur taken pursuant to a California trapping license.<\/p>\n The CLA’s report identified several other issues, including what constitutes “fur” (including whether to include sheepskin and lambskin),\u00a0whether there should be a prohibition on the\u00a0display of fur products to be sold in neighboring localities, and the necessity of a “well-defined appeal process.”<\/p>\n The CLA report\u00a0includes a chart outlining the ways in which the other three California jurisdictions’ existing laws vary from each other.\u00a0 The Los Angeles’ measure adds a\u00a0fourth municipal measure to the list with potentially different provisions.<\/p>\n The CLA also commented on the economic impact\u00a0of the proposed ban, noting that, while the Office of Finance does not keep track of fur sales specifically, the 2012 Economic Census indicated that total retail sales for the product category “Furs and Fur Garments” was “$0.36 billion in California,” i.e<\/em>., $360,000,000, and that the State Board of Equalization reports that statewide taxable sales of all outlets, including “Furs and Fur Garments,” totaled “$558.39 billion in 2012,” i.e<\/em>., $558,390,000,000.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" by John M. Simpson. On September 18, 2018, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved a motion that directs the City Attorney to prepare a city ordinance whose proponents believe will prohibit the manufacture and sale of fur products within the City of Los Angeles.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":317,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[49,153,154,5,152],"ppma_author":[697],"class_list":["post-107","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general","tag-animal-law","tag-fur","tag-fur-ban","tag-john-simpson","tag-los-angeles-city-council"],"authors":[{"term_id":697,"user_id":317,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jmsimpson","display_name":"John M. Simpson","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/38\/2018\/06\/simpsonjohn-125x150.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/317"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=107"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/animallawdevelopments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=107"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n