We have a God-given right to keep and bear arms. Pit Bulls don’t come with that same privilege.
I made an argument citing the 4th, 5th and 9th amendments over here
on why blanket dog banning or seizure is problematic.
We have NO need for Pit Bulls. For any reason.
The danger of that type of thought process should be obvious.
> I made an argument citing the 4th, 5th and 9th amendments over here on why blanket dog banning or seizure is problematic.
Here in NZ, the blanket dog banning and seizure would be blood-simple: you see, most of these scurvy mutts are unregistered. The law requires all dogs to be registered, for very good reasons. But gangstas feel they are above the law and that registration is entirely optional.
Perfect excuse for the City Council to swoop down just like the helicopers in Apocalypse Now and confiscate ‘em all. If it is an unregistered dog, then chances are excellent that it is a dangerous pit bull of dubious parentage owned by irresponsible owners who are unfit for canine companionship. Into the paddy wagon it goes.
Then off to a quiet deserted landfill somewhere and machine-gun the lot. Bulldoze over the remains. Repeat as necessary. 85% of the pit bull problem would be solved.
For those pit bulls that are registered (unlikely to be more than 15%), refuse to re-register without a certificate proving that the mutt has been neutered. Classify it automatically as a Dangerous Breed (because it is) and warn the owner that one false step by this dog and it gets destroyed immediately, without compensation or warning.
As to how you can tell what is a pit bull and what isn’t, that much is easy. I can prove what both of my dogs are, with pedigree papers. They definitely aren’t pit bulls.
So it comes down to Duck Analysis: if it looks like a pit bull, and barks like a pit bull, and bites like a pit bull, then it is a pit bull unless the owner can prove otherwise.
These measures do sound extreme, and I’m not generally a fan of extreme measures. But if we weren’t talking about pit bull mungrel mutts, but rather something else that’s extremely dangerous in untrained hands — say, Anthrax virus — extreme measures would be justified.
No one wants to blanket-ban dogs.
You’re right about the property issue, and I agree; however, cocaine is property and yet it is illegal to own because it’s a proven danger and menace to society. People can’t “enjoy” that property legally because it is dangerous to themselves, and potentially to others. Now, if Pit Bull owners were the only ones who were maimed, injured, etc., then I woudl say, “have at it!” But, unfortunately, OTHERS are involved.
Jack Russel Terriers have not been shown to crush, dismember and kill — but, Pit Bulls have.
So, if control and responsibility are the issues here, what is the solution? How about we charge negligent owners with the outcome of their property’s unsupervised actions? Pit Bull gets loose, maims and kills a child — owner gets charged with murder/manslaugher?
If not, what is the line and where is it drawn?