Posted on 03/11/2015 5:46:03 AM PDT by Altariel
A new bill has been proposed which would allow police officers to enter any home, regardless of whether or not they have a warrant, if there is a pit bull on the property. Even worse, the bill would allow officers to shoot and kill the dog if only a handful of conditions were met.
The Huffington Post reported that measure would make Mississippi the only state in history with a policy against a specific dog breed.
House Bill 1261 not only says police may enter homes without warrants, but they could actually kill the animal if they determine the dogs are “not under proper restraint when on the premises of its owner” or if they are not wearing vaccination tags and “attempts to peacefully capture the dog have been made and proven unsuccessful.”
The bill is being called the Mississippi Regulation of Dangerous Dogs Act, and proponents say it is intended “create civil and criminal penalties for failing to keep dangerous dogs securely confined and under restraint, and for failing to meet certain requirements designed to protect the public.”
“This bill would make Mississippi the only state in the nation with a statewide policy discriminating against a specific dog breed, and the impact on local communities, animal shelters, and law enforcement would be disastrous,” Chloe Waterman, the senior manager of state legislative strategy for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said.
“Dogs permitted by their owners to run loose, and dogs who attack people or other animals, pose a serious problem to public safety. But breed-specific dangerous dog laws are ineffective, inhumane and costly.”
Kris Diaz, executive director of a group that advocates for breed-neutral legislation, said that “the fourth amendment clearly protects people from such actions.
“This bill effectively removes any protections people have from unreasonable search and seizure, and opens the door to using a dangerous dog claim as a way to scrutinize people for things they couldn’t otherwise get a warrant for.”
Lookie what the elites are testing now. The very idea needs to be buried. May we never assume that the cessation of the first attempt is equivalent to stopping the latest threat to liberty.
A segment of FR just experienced simultaneous orgasm.
More than just dogs will get shot if this law becomes law.
Obamacare’s abortion mandate trampled the free exercise guarantee in the First Amendment. “Hate speech” laws trampled the free speech guarantee in the First Amendment. Court rulings demanding that people lend artistic support to gay “marriage” through baking, photography, and other services trampled the free association guarantee in the First Amendment. Numerous laws trampled the RKBA shall not be infringed guarantee in the Second Amendment. I could go on; there is a very long list of constitutional guarantees that are intentionally ignored by big government liberals from both parties. Why not trample the Fourth Amendment too?
All of these actions are shockingly evil and dangerous to free Americans, and we should actively fight against all of them. We cannot just focus on those aspects of FedGov overreach that we find personally inconvenient.
No illegal search and seizure. Period. No warrant, no entry. The Constitution is real clear about that.
The pro-gov’t enforcer groups on FR?
Screw them!
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (unless they own a dog deemed by petty bureaucrats to be dangerous), shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
OMG - It IS in there!
Just kidding...
Those proposing this law need to spend some time in the public square in the stocks.
The name or names of the sponsors of this Gestapo piece of garbage?
And the death to pit bull contingent. Frequently there is overlap between the two...
My sympathy is limited when that happens. Even when a law permits unconstitutional behavior, a decent government agent acting in his official capacity will follow the Constitution. I would not execute a no-knock warrant for at least 99% of the cases in which those are approved, enforce any gun laws except in the enforcement of real laws, or enter a home without a warrant over a dog of any breed.
Really?
Who?
Apparently, this bill never made it out of committee.
Go to any pitbull thread. You will find no shortage of freepers who advocate the wholesale slaughter of the breed at any cost.
From MS Legislature’s web site:
Mississippi Legislature
2015 Regular Session
House Bill 1261
Description: Crimes; create penalties for failing to meet certain requirements designed to protect the public from dangerous dogs.
Fiscal Note: No fiscal note conducted
Background Information:
Disposition: Dead
Deadline: General Bill/Constitutional Amendment
Revenue: No
Vote type required: Majority
Effective date: July 1, 2015
History of Actions:
1 01/19 (H) Referred To Judiciary B
2 02/03 (H) Died In Committee
Code Section: A 041-0053-0011, A 097-0041-0003, A 097-0041-0016, A 097-0041-0019
-—— Additional Information -——
House Committee: Judiciary B*
Principal Author: Byrd
Additional Authors: Taylor
Title: AN ACT TO CREATE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES FOR FAILING TO KEEP DANGEROUS DOGS SECURELY CONFINED AND UNDER RESTRAINT, AND FOR FAILING TO MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC; TO DEFINE “DANGEROUS DOG” FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACT; TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DEFINITION OF “DANGEROUS DOG” IN INSTANCES OF WILLFUL TRESPASSING OR COMMITTING A TORT OR CRIME ON THE PREMISES OF THE DOG’S OWNER, OF TEASING, TORMENTING OR ABUSING THE DOG, OR OF PROTECTING OR DEFENDING A PERSON FROM UNJUSTIFIED ATTACK; TO SET FORTH OTHER DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS ACT AND LEVELS OF OFFENSES; TO PROVIDE THAT IF A DANGEROUS DOG’S BITE OR ATTACK RESULTS IN THE DEATH OF A PERSON, OR IN THE SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OF A CHILD, THE OWNER OF THE DOG MAY NOT CLAIM THAT HE DID NOT KNOW THAT THE DOG WAS DANGEROUS AS A DEFENSE IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, OR AS THE BASIS FOR IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY IN A CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES; TO REQUIRE THE OWNER OF A DANGEROUS DOG THAT HAS INJURED A PERSON WITHOUT PROVOCATION, OR KILLED A DOMESTIC ANIMAL, TO POSSESS CERTAIN LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE; TO PROVIDE THAT THIS ACT SHALL NOT APPLY IF THE DOG IS ASSISTING IN THE PERFORMANCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OR MILITARY DUTIES; TO PROVIDE THAT THIS ACT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS PROHIBITING A PERSON FROM ENGAGING IN CERTAIN LAWFUL ACTIVITIES OR FROM DEFENDING OR PROTECTING A PERSON OR PROPERTY; TO AMEND SECTIONS 41-53-11, 97-41-3, 97-41-16 and 97-41-19, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, IN CONFORMITY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
“Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead”
Destruction of Liberty at any level...it’s what they do.
I know a lot of people hate the breed, but I have not read of anyone at FR advocating the violation of the 4th Amendment as a tool to eradicate them.
4th and 5th Amendment violations. Pets are property.
In Muslim countries, wives are property...but I digress.
Here’s the simplicity of the problem. Officer Jones shows up at a house, and some big dog appears. Friendly dog. But officer Jones decides to shoot the dog. Seven-year-old kid in the house....watches this...dead dog, and he retrieves the family rifle by the front-door and shoots the officer in the chest but is saved by his vest....officer Jones returns fire and kills the seven-year-old kid (probably two rounds).
Normally, things would end right there. But the kid’s grand mother watches all this transpire and pulls a .38 from her purse and walks up to the cop and shoots him in a un-vested area. Cop is dead. Kid is dead. Dog is dead.
It’ll take two weeks for the state legislature to meet and determine that the law is wrongly written. Grandma? Maybe they will waste two years trying to convict her but the governor will be under pressure to pardon her. Think the cops will be happy with the pardon or the governor?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.