We believe that small-scale chicken keeping is a healthy, economical and sustainable way to feed and enrich our families and our community. Besides making great pets, hens provide us with fresh eggs and encourage local sustainable living. The ability to raise chickens offers educational opportunities for our children.

Chickens serve as a natural alternative to pesticides by eating bugs and insects, including fleas and disease-spreading ticks. Chickens also eat weeds and chicken manure serves as an excellent fertilizer for lawns and gardens. Backyard chickens provide many benefits, which is why many towns and cities across the country now permit their residents to raise backyard chickens.

The two most common concerns residents have regarding urban chickens are noise and smell.

Hens are very quiet animals. Compared to a dog's bark which can reach over 90 decibels, chickens can hardly be called a noisy animal. The best way to keep your hens content (and reduce any noises of irritation!) is to keep them in the perfect chicken house.

As for the smell, it is true that any animal leaves behind waste. Just as dog owners are expected to clean up their pet's waste, so should chicken owners. In fact, the very same ordinances that allow for chickens in our surrounding communities require chickens to be kept in sanitary conditions just as other pet owners are expected to do.

Communities formed after mid-1998 with an initial $400 cap on annual assessments are allowed to increase their caps by a cost-of-living-allowance (COLA) each year and still be managed under the limited set of CCIOA provisions.

CCIOA has no such COLA provision for communities formed between mid-1992 and mid-1998 with an initial $300 cap. If property owners vote to increase assessments to match inflation, their associations would be subject to all the provisions of CCIOA, many of which could be costly or burdensome to implement.

Community associations that are now more than 20 years old are facing divisive and expensive decisions about raising annual assessments due to a flaw in CCIOA's Section 116.

Effective 10:00 pm eastern tonight the RCMP has reclassified the Swiss Arms Classic Green carbine from non-restricted (and restricted) to prohibited status. There are approximately 1,000 -1,800 of these firearms in the public. The government will not be offering compensation and will be demanding that the firearms, which cost between $3,000 - $4,000 be surrendered. The government is suggesting that all affected firearms owners contact the distributors from which the firearms were purchased for reimbursement.

The NFA encourages all affected owners to contact their federal Member of Parliament. This is part of an ongoing agenda of the RCMP to progressively prohibit firearms in Canada.

Under Bill C-68, the firearms classification system was supposed to be updated regularly to prohibit firearms being introduced into the market, as well as those already in Canada.

The Government of Canada was supposed to assist in this with periodic new legislation and Order in Council (OIC).

The RCMP have been doing this unilaterally since 2006. Access to information records show that RCMP have an aggressive firearms reclassification agenda, and that prohibitions will not stop with the Swiss Arms Series Rifles. These rifles were approved for import by the RCMP have been sold in Canada for over a decade. Owners once held registrations for them under the now defunct long gun registry.
There has never been a crime or incident of violence committed with one of these rifles.

NFA condemns this RCMP assault on the rights and private property of law abiding Canadians. The RCMP has shown contempt for the rights of Canadians by their actions, and we expect the Government of Canada to take steps and introduce measures to reign in the RCMP and end the assault against the rights, property and freedoms of Canadians.

If you wish to join the support group please goto!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/221239064736413/

The petition of the undersigned shows:

that the recent bullying-related death of 15 year-old Chloe Ferguson has led to a public outpouring of grief and concern, with many others coming forward to speak out about the devastating effects of bullying, including cyberbullying, in their own lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren.

Over 271 000 people have joined an online community calling for stricter anti-bullying laws and enforcement of those laws as part of a determined approach to addressing the ongoing problem of bullying. In addition to the signatures on the petition presented here, more than another 29 000 people have also signed non-conforming petitions, calling for review of Australia’s anti-bullying laws (over 19 5000 on GoPetition: Chloe’s Law – Bullying a crime punishable by law and over 9 500 on change.org: Australian Government: Introduce anti-bullying laws in Australia).

There is clearly strong community support for law reform in relation to bullying in general, and cyberbullying in particular.

The call from the community for action on this issue is supported by the research findings of Dr Colette Langos of the School of Law, University of South Australia, whose doctoral thesis considers the merits and constraints of enacting a specific criminal cyberbullying offence (Colette Langos, ‘Cyberbullying, associated harm and the criminal law’ (PhD Thesis, University of South Australia, 2013). Dr Langos has drafted model cyberbullying legislation which aims to criminalize only the most serious manifestations (forms) of cyberbullying, thereby minimizing over-criminalization, and we commend her work to the members of the Senate and any committees or inquiries that may result from this petition.

The signatories to this petition believe that Sections 15 and 17 of Division 474 of the Schedule of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) provide critical tools for the regulation of cyberbullying, capturing some behaviour that may not be adequately captured by state laws. Since s 474.17 of the Schedule of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) requires the perpetrator to be aware that there was a substantial risk the conduct would be considered menacing, harassing or offensive and that the perpetrator is unjustified in taking that risk, we believe there is educative, normative and legal value in the incorporation of a legal definition of cyberbullying into Division 474.

YET, California allows RCFEs to care for increasing numbers of hospice, bedridden, and other medically needy residents, but does not require any skilled medical professionals to be employed by the facilities. Simply put – this is a recipe for neglect and abuse. And worse, there is no reasonable mechanism for residents and their families to obtain meaningful accountability from these facilities when the resident is injured, made sick or dies at the hand of the licensee.

A judgment against an uninsured facility sued for wrongful death due to the neglect or abuse of a resident, is useless if the facility does not carry liability insurance. The facility receives a monetary judgment, but because there is no liability insurance to pay the judgment to the aggrieved family, the facility owner unable to pay the judgment - files bankruptcy. Few civil litigators will take a contingency case against an RCFE if the RCFE is uninsured. In either case, the family is left holding an empty bag.

CARR’s findings are that 87% of facilities in its database do not carry liability insurance at the time they are licensed. The odds are high that most residents in California live in facilities that do not carry liability insurance at all.

California must do a better job of protecting the frail, elderly, and medically needy residents living in assisted living. The decision to protect the elderly and their families can no longer be left to the licensee.

Mandatory Liability Insurance for RCFEs is both NECESSARY and OVERDUE! for three reasons: Moral Imperative, Accountability and Fairness.
• Moral Imperative: Elders and their families are at the mercy of uninsured RCFEs when the elder is injured, made ill, or suffers death at the hand of the licensee.
• Accountability: Current state regulations afford limited avenues for the family to hold the licensee accountable for harm suffered.
• Fairness: Why are frail elders not protected against ‘defective’ care delivered by RCFE owners?

Every licensed driver in California must carry liability insurance. Yet, over 8,000 assisted living facilities in California, carrying for 200,000 frail and medically needy residents, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, without benefit of skilled medical professionals being on the staff of these facilities are exempt from carrying liability insurance.

CARR says, ENOUGH. The time for accountability is now.

For the older adult in each of us, please join CARR in demanding this common sense consumer protection for all: Require that all California residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFEs) carry mandatory liability insurance.

They Are Holding up Progress The World Is Changing Around Them And They Aren't Willing To Compromise On Any Issue.

Despite this, several governments across the nation are considering instituting age-based bans on sunbathing – despite research that it is skin type and excessive overexposure – not age which is the primary risk.

If you agree that governments should work to protect all ages through mandatory professional control of UV exposure, restricting skin type I individuals and parental consent, then we would ask that you affix your name to this petition.

The signers of this petition urge our State Congressmen and women to revoke the right of private citizens to own semi-automatic and multi-round firearms.

Firearms (other than single round Sport-Hunting rifles) will be banned to private use.

While it is our Constitutional right to maintain a "well regulated militia for the security of the state" we also have the Constitutional obligation to "ensure domestic tranquillity" and "promote the general welfare" of our country.

The signers of this petition are seeking this State Level amendment in accord with our Federal Constitution's obligations and rights.

There had been recent reports of police impersonators and she was afraid. He cut her off forcing her to stop, approached her car with gun drawn, broke her rear passenger window, took her cellphone and threw it on the ground, pulled her from her car and handcuffed her. She was charged with assaulting the officer, fleeing and resisting arrest. The assault charge was dropped. She was convicted on May 16 of resisting arrest and fleeing.

The judge sentenced her to 6 months unsupervised probation and reduced one charge to a misdemeanor. Dibor Roberts was not fleeing - she was afraid and was trying to get to a lighted area. The police recommend that women do that -- but until it is a law, women are not protected from police impersonators or from officers exerting unnecessary force in making a stop.