Check this out: apparently your chief counsel considers today's decision a partial victory (e.g. Sam's safe) & is headed up the Judicial food chain for a complete victory.
"Skye barks up"
Posted on 03/23/2007 3:06:31 PM PDT by kanawa
TORONTO — The bulk of the Ontario government’s controversial ban on pit bulls has survived a constitutional challenge.
But two key elements were struck down in a ruling issued today by Superior Court Justice Thea Herman.
Herman declared the definition of a pit bull terrier unconstitutional, and also struck down a provision that allows the province to use certificates from veterinarians to prove a dog is in fact a pit bull.
Attorney General Michael Bryant says the province got “99 per cent” of what it wanted out of today’s decision.
Lawyer Clayton Ruby, who led the challenge, said in a brief statement his side has claimed a “substantial” victory, but vowed to file an appeal.
Ruby argued the ban is unconstitutional and too broad because it bans all pit bulls, even though animal experts say the majority of the dogs are friendly family pets.
“People should continue to leash and muzzle their pit bulls; pit bulls are banned are in Ontario, and that has been upheld by the Ontario Superior Court,” Bryant said in an interview.
“Pit bulls remain banned, the purebred definitions of pit bulls are banned, anything substantially similar to those purebreds are banned.”
The law forces pit bull owners to muzzle, leash and sterilize their dogs or face a $10,000 fine or up to six months in jail — or both. Dogs can’t be bred or brought into the province.
Ruby argued statistics suggest there are other dogs more dangerous than pit bulls.
He cited a Canadian study that found that since 1983, 23 fatalities from dog attacks in which 55 dogs were involved. Only one dog involved was a pit bull breed, an American Staffordshire terrier.
In court documents, Crown lawyers argued the ban is necessary to protect the public from potential pit bull attacks.
They said attacks by pit bulls are more deadly than from other dogs and pit bulls often attack viciously without being provoked.
Woof
FRiends, I can't comment on this at the moment other than to say I hope that we can find the resources to appeal.
I'm very sad.
Just pray these idiots don't apply the same logic to protecting the public from potential auto accidents or potential food poisoning :-(
No dog lover should support this. A recent ban in Florida included German Shepherds and Huskies. No big dog owner is safe from these.
:(
I'm a dog lover, and I support the ban.
Pit bulls were developed for one reason - to fight.
And I challenge any of the breed's defenders to climb into, or put their children into, a cage with one that they don't know.
"Skye barks up"
With respect, that is a ridiculous challenge that no responsible owner of any breed would take up.
Pit bull or collie?
Pit bull or Golden Retriever?
Which one would you prefer you, or your kids, encounter on the sidewalk?
I think I'd even trust a Rottweiler before a Pit bull.
A decision that upholds fascism - an absolute disgrace. I don't know how anyone can support a government or a political party that would crucify people's much loved pets.
Freedoms are not limitless.
There is no right to libel, no right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc. Some things genuinely are in the public's best interest.
There are good and bad dogs of all breeds.
To assume a Collie or a GR is incapable of seriously injuring or killing a child is a dangerous error in judgement.
I would prefer a child never to meet any uncontrolled dog on the sidewalk.
They are using a very broad definition of a pit bull. Under the Ontario law the English Staffordhire, known as the nanny dog because of its love of children and willingness to protect them, would be banned. The American pitbulls I have come across have been loving and affectionate dogs. My dog's vet has had many years experience, opposes breed specific legislation and confirms that pitbulls are loving and affectionate dogs. If they attack, it is because they have been badly treated. In Australia recently, a young pitbull owner cut the ears off his young dog with scissors to make it look meaner. It could still waggle its tail and show affection and animal welfare agents will relocate it to a good home whilst prosecuting the owner. If dogs are badly treated they will become aggressive. What is needed is a ban on irresponsible owners.
Let me guess, Freedom is about Authority??? Conservatives generally believe that government should not be given any more power than necessary. If Dog fighting is Illegal and pit bulls are bread to fight, what makes you think that these folks that do ILLEGAL dog fighting are going to be afraid to give up an illegal breed of dog. OTOH The responsible pit bull owners that know how to handle their dogs are punished for this stupidity.
C'mon, GMMAC, ease up.
"Seizing her pet and destroying him" ?
The new law only says muzzle, leash, and sterilize. Is that really too much to ask?
"Conservatives favor addressing problems based upon individual responsibility ..."
So, the government has no role to play in the safeguarding of society? I can't build bombs or do nuclear fission experiments in my neighbourhood - why? Because it's a threat to my neighbour's safety. Same thing if someone has a dangerous animal in the neighbourhood - the government has a right (duty) to ensure the public's safety.
That IS conservatism, my friend, and it's consistent with the lessons of 10,000 years of social living: Safety must be priority one.
"Those who desire security over liberty deserve neither security nor liberty."
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.