Whenever an opponent to a bill says “well, we don’t have the resources to enforce this” they are also pointing out that we currently don’t have the resources to enforce the current legal state of affairs.

“We don’t want to enforce a more clear law on chickens so don’t vote for it.” is not an argument. By that logic they can’t enforce the current muddy law which says maybe you can and maybe you can’t have chickens.

This is an argument-sounding statement, but it’s not an argument. In fact it’s basically saying nothing other than “we can’t enforce the laws we have on the books, so why bother changing them?”

Which is just another way of saying “the laws on the books are basically meaningless.”

I recommend that if you want to have chickens you go ahead and get chickens. Either laws forbidding them won’t be enforced (probably), or the “argument” against clarifying the rules is worthless, in which case you can now push to legalize your reasonable desire to keep chickens in the USD.

As a friend recently said on this topic, “civil disobedience is greatly underrated.”

***

I could not have expressed this better, kudos Nash615, whoever you are.