The constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to keep a certain breed of dogs. And, FWIW, I’v enever heard anyone talking about a ban on Giant Schnauzers or Akidas or even Fila Brasileiros even though anyone of these dogs is potentially as dangerous as a pitbull because they aren’t as commonly available or as notorious as pit bulls. That being said, I have always contended that ownership of a pitbull should be regulated at the state level just as much as a handgun. I understand the need for the breed but I think we need to ensure that owners have mandatory liability insurance on the dog and they need to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the ownership laws anually and at the request of neighbors and LE, laws that demonstrate that the owners have positive control over the animal at all times. And I disagree with your “99%” figure.
Wow! And what does the Constitution do? It provides limited powers to the federal government. And unless owning a pit bull involves interstate commerce, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to get be involved in this issue.
And when the government took over the banks, there wasn't anyone talking about the government taking over the auto industry....
Perhaps owners of larger breeds should be required to take a licensing test indicating knowledge of law, and dog care and that of other critters. They should also perhaps be required to have some kind of liability insurance. This goes also for chimps, lions, tigers and other large pets, as well as poison snakes, constrictors, alligators and the like. The fee could help defray the cost to the municipality of these large dogs and other creatures.
Can you tell me where in the Constitution it says the Federal Govt CAN regulate what sort of dog you can own?