Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: CaptainK

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.


4 posted on 08/04/2018 11:22:43 PM PDT by Norski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Norski

I am curious - can a pit bull be trained to stop chomping on someone once they begin? Like a trained police dog?


5 posted on 08/04/2018 11:37:22 PM PDT by Slyfox (Not my circus, not my monkeys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Norski

“Local ordinances cannot trample constitutional rights!”

There is there a constitutional right to keep and bear pitbulls? Must be hidden in there with the right to an abortion.


67 posted on 08/05/2018 8:30:46 AM PDT by Hugin (Conservatism without Nationalism is fraud.,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson