Posted on 08/04/2018 10:29:02 PM PDT by Norski
First time for a proposed pit bull ban to go before voters prior to taking effect
SPRINGFIELD, Missouri––Opens Question 1 on the August 7, 2018 primary election ballot for the City of Springfield, Missouri:
“Shall the City of Springfield establish a future ban upon the possession of new pit bull dogs within the City limits by prohibiting acceptance of any new pit bull registrations and only allowing renewals of existing current pit bull dog registrations?”
The language of the proposed Springfield pit bull ban was approved by the city council, voting 5-4, in November 2017. Backlash
“The backlash was immediate,” recalls Springfield News-Leader reporter Alissa Zhu. “Residents threatened to boycott businesses associated with the five council members who voted for the ordinance. Within a month, more than 7,800 people signed a petition, circulated by a local group called Citizens Against BSL, in an effort to stop the ban.”
Enough petition signatures were certified to put the proposed ordinance before the Springfield voters. The outcome appears likely to be decided by how effectively pit bull ban opponents and proponents mobilize during the next few days to get out the vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at animals24-7.org ...
The August 7, 2018 Missouri primary is expected to bring an unusually high turnout because of the presence on the ballot of statewide Proposition A, a so-called “right-to-work” measure generally supported by Republicans but opposed by Democrats, in a state where political opinion has mirrored that of the U.S. as a whole in all but three presidential elections since 1904.
(see complete article with photos, statistics, data and commentary here):
https://www.animals24-7.org/2018/08/04/will-springfield-missouri-vote-on-august-7-2018-to-ban-pit-bulls/
What a hateful low-life thing to do. Shame!!
If only it was nationwide.
I believe that this is a municipality.
This may be of interest and of assistance to those who would wish to discuss legalities:
(Excerpted from:
https://www.dogsbite.org/legislating-dangerous-dogs-bsl-faq.php#constitutional
Q: Is breed-specific legislation constitutional?
Well-written breed-specific laws have a 100% success rate in appellate courts when faced with constitutional challenges. This is true with “private property” issues too. In 2014, when Utah-based fighting dog advocates, Best Friends Animal Society, fiercely lobbied Missouri legislators to pass a state preemption bill barring municipalities from enacting pit bull ordinances, the group used false constitutional arguments. DogsBite.org clarified these fallacy arguments in a letter to legislators.
Example fallacy: “Local ordinances cannot trample constitutional rights!”
To believe or to promote such an invalid argument would be to ignore American Jurisprudence. If the analysis of the supporters of SB 865 were correct, there would have been no legal basis for any of the breed-specific law victories in appellate courts; not one would have survived constitutional scrutiny. The fact is, the exact opposite is true. Why has every well-written breed-specific law been upheld after judicial scrutiny? Please see a full listing of these decisions.
Private property issues have been re-litigated in breed-specific cases and each time have failed because this legal issue has been settled for over a hundred years when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton R. Co. - 166 U.S. 698 (1897) and determined that government officials could shoot and kill loose dogs that pose a danger to the community. See Google Scholar search results for: “Sentell” and “property” and “pit bull” - DogsBite.org
In 2015, a Washington state legislator who sponsored a state preemption bill, falsely stated that a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1920, Nicchia v. New York, found that it was “unconstitutional to have breed-specific ordinances.” In a follow up letter to the House Judiciary Chair, we explained why Rep. Sherry Appleton’s analysis of Nicchia is 100% flawed. A good rule of thumb in this legal area is that entities opposing breed-specific legislation will throw anything to see if it sticks.
I am curious - can a pit bull be trained to stop chomping on someone once they begin? Like a trained police dog?
I do not believe so, because the very thing that causes PBTs to attack without warning or signalling is cause by a brain malfunction deficiency, not something added.
Having stated that, there are many ways in which attacks have been stopped. M. Clifton relates one in which he roared “sit” at PBTs beginning to attack a jogger, and they sat both times. For a moment.
Please see here for further information. It is an excerpt of the book by Semyonova:
https://www.animals24-7.org/2015/11/10/the-science-of-how-behavior-is-inherited-in-aggressive-dogs/
The heritability of abnormal aggression in certain breeds of dogs can no longer be denied. The bodies of these dogs have been selected to execute a killing bite more efficiently than other breeds. These dogs share physical conformation to the task of killing, including exaggerated jaw muscles, heavy necks and shoulders, and body mass that makes defense against an attack much more difficult. Among people who want dogs who can kill, these are the breeds of choice because they are physically more fit for it than other breeds.
Dogo Argentino
Dogo Argentino
Behavioral conformation
But breeders also selected for behavioral conformation. To perform well, a fighting dog had to attack without provocation or warning, and to continue attacking regardless of the response of the other animal. Bull and bear-baiting dogs had to be willing to attack in the absence of the species-specific signs that normally provoke aggression, responding to the mere presence of another animals, and not stopping in response to external stimuli. The Dogues du Bordeaux used to guard extended farmlands in France, the Boerbulls used similarly in South Africa, and the fugitive slave-chasing dogs of Latin America, such as the Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasiliero, all were selected to specifically for a propensity to kill.
As they selected for performance, breeders could not know exactly which physical changes they were selecting for. But research now shows that selection for aggressive performance includes consistently selecting for very specific abnormalities in the brain. These abnormalities appear in many breeds of dog as an accident or anomaly, which breeders then attempt to breed out of the dogs. In the case of the aggressive breeds, the opposite occurred. Rather than excluding abnormally aggressive dogs from their breeding stock, breeders focused on creating lineages in which all the dogs would carry the genes causing them to reliably exhibit the desired impulsive aggressive behavior.
“That aggression is not heritable is not tenable”
Now that we know exactly which brain abnormalities the breeders of fighting dogs have been selecting, the assertion that this aggression is not heritable is no longer tenable. It is also not tenable to assert that not all the dogs of these breeds will carry the genes that make them dangerous.
Guns work too.
That’s right.
People exercising their Constitutional rights is such a disgrace. Shut down the voice of the people. Don’t let them have any say in how they want their city run.
The government shouldn’t allow the democratic process to determine what the people in a city want. It should decide for them.
No, that’s not what this is at all, this is taking away peoples rights and you are pushing for it.
You can’t call yourself a republican or a conservative and do this. They are diametrically opposite.
You really need to get off FR and go to your home over at DU with the other DUmmies.
Why are you here stirring up hate and discontent anyway? Does it give you some kind of thrill like it does the OP.
I have been reading more in the last few months about knives being used, especially in states which restrict or ban firearms.
I have also seen and heard about the use of fire extinguishers, which have been used successfully - to drive the attacking dog off (unfamiliar and sounds/looks like a snake).
And they are apparently also effective if aimed directly into the mouth, nose and breathing passages to restrict breathing, to get the dog to open its mouth and release the victim.
Pit Bull will treat your leg like you eatngi an ear of corn.
First they came for the pit bulls, but I was not a pit bull...
Who carries a fire extinguisher? I don’t understand anyone protecting these land shark but I wouldn’t ban them. What recourse is there when gang bangers set these dogs into the streets?
Same ole story. responsible people lose their rights. Always using negative rights like Obama wants to do with the constitution
But she can tell you that.
Calm down.
Just a couple of days ago three of six pit bulls within 40 miles of me killed and ate a two-year-old child. I would like to see a holocaust of pit bulls on any dog that looks like one.
Pitbullfacts.org.
Cynophobia is treatable.
You have a troll following you. It’s almost like it’s stalking you. You better watch out it may attack like a pit bull. It’s already started it’s growling at others.
Yes. I had noticed that.
In Norway, the trolls live under the bridges. They steal your goats.
There is a problem with your definition of “rights”.
Municipalities decide all the time what animals are allowed in private hands. You do not have the right to keep a tiger. You do not have the right to keep other animals deemed dangerous to the public. Most municipalities ban venomous snakes or license the ownership of them. Your local wildlife agency, lawyers office, fisheries dept will be able to tell you if they can be legally kept in your area.
So limiting which animals can be kept as pets is a balance of what is dangerous to the public at large versus limitations on the individual’s freedom and is enshrined in law.
The only question here seems to be that you disagree that pitbulls represent a threat to the general public. That is where another freedom comes into play. Relocate from a municipality that outlaws private ownership of pitbulls, that is your right. Campaign that pitbulls shouldn’t be outlawed ditto.
However your argument that people shouldn’t be allowed to classify pitbulls as dangerous and restrict ownership is emotional not logical or reasonable. I’d say your rights stop when people get tired of sacrificing 2 year olds or old ladies so you can own a tiger, a pitbull or any other breed/species that attacks mankind.
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.