[Dr. Sivana]

There is no such animal as an “illegal animal”.

The law differentiates between *wild* animals and *domesticated* animals.

That's like saying there is no such thing as an illegal alien.

When I say "illegal animal", it is a shorthand for an animal that is has restrictions on ownership, such as breeding, selling, owning, gifting, etc. There is nothing inherit in a non-wild animal breed/type deemed to be dangerous that wouldn't make it subject to restrictions. Even completely domestic dogs cannot roam free, yet domestic cats in most jurisdictions can. Raccoons are wild, but are often allowed to be kept as pets. The wild/domestic distinction is one. Dangerous/non-dangerous is another. I see no principle that would elevate the rights to keep or breed an American Pit Bull Terrier over a contained raccoon.

[Altariel]

How about the principle that dog owners have the liberty of choosing whatever dog breed they fancy (coupled with the responsiiblity of choosing wisely and caring for their animal’s needs).

Breed Specific Legislation is the “gun control legislation” of the dog world.

I don’t want the government telling me watch dogs I cannot own any more than I want the government telling me which guns I cannot own. Both directives are (surprise surprise) unconstitutional.

That is one reason why I am a conservative.