A California animal shelter will not allow anyone to adopt pets if they don’t support gun control. You have to forfeit the 2nd Amendment to get a pet from her shelter.
The Shelter Hope Pet Shop in Thousand Oaks, California requires people wanting to adopt to answer the question; “Where do you stand on gun control?” in its standard adoption interview for potential pet owners.
“We believe that if we can make our voices heard on how we feel we can make an impact. We do not support those who believe that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to buy assault weapons,” Shelter Hope Pet Shop owner Kim Sill wrote on the organization’s website. “If your beliefs are not in line with ours, we will not adopt a pet to you.”
Sill referenced the deadly mass shooting at a Thousand Oaks bar in 2018, writing that the shooter who carried out that attack had volunteered at Shelter Hope Pet Shop. Sill added that she had been told by officials that the gunman had considered targeting the shelter as a potential location to carry out the shooting.
“If you lie about being a [National Rifle Association] supporter, make no mistake, we will sue you for fraud,” Sill wrote.
The owner told NBC News that a number of the shelter’s donors are Republicans and will cut off financial support.
“I say, fine, keep your money,” Sill told the network. “If I go out of business, as a result, I go out of business. But I have to do something. And this is the only thing I can do to make the point that mass killings by people armed with guns have to stop.”
THOUSAND OAKS MURDERS
It’s ironic that she’d use Thousand Oaks as her example.
The bar security, the guards, and the officers in that shooting were unarmed. The killer was obviously armed. What you might not have heard is the bar is a gun-free zone. The killer Ian Long, a troubled ex-marine, who did not have PTSD, likely knew that.
The Sacramento Bee reported that although they have strict gun laws, it’s obviously not enough. They say gun laws work and they need more.
No, what they needed was to arm the people in charge of security.
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
Those poor pets . .
Miserable woman. Those animals might have gotten great forever homes, but she has to insert her politics into their future. GFYS Kim
If homos can sue a baker for refusing to bake a cake (NOT a Constitutional right) then certainly someone can sue these idiots for refusing to adopt a pet out to them for exercising an ACTUAL Constitutional right.
Funny! Is that a quid pro quo or bribery? The true Americans will always give their animals the best care possible than these totalitarian immoral soulless shells of a human being hating on America/Americans!
Fine, off to the gas chamber with them. Idiots!