Animal abuser registry; established. (HB1930)

Introduced By

Del. Danny Marshall (R-Danville)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Animal abuser registry established.  Defines "animal abuser" as an adult who has been convicted of a felony violation of 3.2-6570 (cruelty to animals) or 3.2-6571 (animal fighting) or of a substantially similar law of another state or of the United States and requires any animal abuser physically within the boundaries of the Commonwealth for more than 10 consecutive days to register in person with the sheriff of the county or city in which the animal abuser resides or is located. The bill also requires the offender to reregister annually. Failure to register or reregister is a Class 6 felony. The bill requires the sheriff to notify every residence and business within a one-half mile radius of the abusers residence or location within 10 days of initial registration. The bill requires that registry information be maintained in a central registry by the State Police and posted on their website. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/11/2011Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/12/11 11100966D
01/11/2011Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/12/2011Impact statement from (HB1930)
01/12/2011Impact statement from VCSC (HB1930)
01/27/2011Impact statement from DPB (HB1930)
02/08/2011Left in Courts of Justice


stephen writes:

I think this is a great idea and long over do.

daniel writes:

personally with our tax dollars in short supply I believe we can find a more urgent place to spend them.

David writes:

This a bill that would also aid rescues and shelters that adopt out companion animals. It would also help owners giving, adopting or selling their pets in making the right decission.

Rickey Moore writes:

I see nothing in this bill about aiding rescues and shelters. It IS another registry. Bottom line is that if a person is pathologically cruel to animals, then they need to be on a in-patient list at the state mental asylum. Like the sex-offender registry, you may find yourself on this list when your neighbor turns you in for kicking the family dog. Or, says you did. This is not defined. Sorry, I oppose this bill as it is not necessary and will add another burden to the existing budget. Registries are no substitute for residential mental health facilities.

With all of the financial crimes being committed why is a registry being created for animal abusers? How about a registry for corrupt politicians? I don't see that being proposed. Or alcoholics? Keep them on a registry and order them to appear at the fire station, on New Years eve, that being a high risk situation for them. Drug pushers? Gang members? Bad Lawyers? Thieves? I foresee a list of lists. This is but the second wave, after sex offenders. They'll get around to everyone else soon enough, if this is not opposed.

Mary writes:

Tracking Animal Abuse (and Abusers) on the Web, January 16, 2011:

Bubberella writes:


The bill requires a conviction of animal abuse or animal fighting, not just a neighbor's "say-so". I don't know if this bill is the way to address the problem, but conceptually I like the idea that people convicted of cruelty to animals can't get more animals. Requiring the sheriff to notify neighbors may be a bit much.

Rickey Moore writes:

Bubberella, "Requiring the sheriff to notify neighbors may be a bit much." Heh, that's the understatement of the year! Every human being within a half-mile radius, is a circle one mile in diameter. How many people would have to be contacted in a place like Chesterfield? I don't know the exact number, but it would be a LOT of people. One officer could take weeks to accomplish that. This is a prime example of how tax dollars get wasted, hand over fist. And for what? Someone harming animals needs re-education. If that doesn't work, then they need permanent care in a long term mental health facility. Put the money there, if we have it to spend, rather than another registry. On that ground, I am against this bill. It says that the offender is incapable of acknowledging mistakes and taking responsibility to not re-offend in the future, so their where-abouts must be published. If that were so, they have no business being loose.