Need advice on constitutionality

[Proserpina]

What I am saying is, is that american bulldogs, boxers, mastiffs, boxer lab mixes, they are all being called pit bulls when in fact.....they are not. So if you have a boxer, and it bites someone, but prior to the bite you are forced to register that dog as a pit bull (even though it is not) guess what? A "pit bull" bit someone, not a boxer. Even if you have proof your dog is not a pit bull. How is that legal?

Because it's not illegal...

..kind of thought I pointed that out earlier

 

[HappyWanderer]

Yet, we find those animals the Supreme Court of your state which can be distinguished have the problem of:

substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people. “ … The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs; (2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog; (3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined; (4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed.

Do you know how much it costs to disagree with the Supreme Court of your state? Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do you have that much to spend on your theory?

 

[mike6623]

Yet, we find those animals the Supreme Court of your state which can be distinguished have the problem of:

Do you know how much it costs to disagree with the Supreme Court of your state? Hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do you have that much to spend on your theory?

There is a bill right now. House Bill 79 in Ohio that would remove breed specific legislation from ohio law. There are thousands of supporters of this bill including vets, animal control officers, behaviorists....people with actual knowledge about animal behavior and breeds. Hopefully this will pass, if so, OWNERS will be the ones the blame will fall upon when something happens (with any breed) not the appearance of the dog.

 

[HappyWanderer]

Awesome. Democracy, what a concept.

 

[Shadowbunny]

Well, you are just as ignorant as coucil persons making life or death decisions for animals you know nothing about. You obviously believe the hype.

I bet you didn't know that american pit bull terriers placed higher with the american temperment testing society above labs and golden retrievers.

So no, they are not "known dangerous breeds" for one, as I stated before, pit bull is not a breed. It is a description. You need to research before you spout off ignorant remarks that are false[/QUOTE]




You say "american pit bull terriers placed higher with the american temperment testing society above labs...." and then you say "pit bull is not a breed." So which is it?

Additionally, the CDC disagrees with you about their being "dangerous." From their fact sheet about dog bites: Studies indicate that pit bull-type dogs were involved in approximately a third of human (Dog Bite-Related Fatalities) DBRF reported during the 12-year period from 1981 through1992, and Rottweilers were responsible for about half of human DBRF reported during the 4 years from 1993through 1996...

And according to the American Temperament Test Society, Inc.
(ATTS), only 85.3 percent of American Pitbull Terrier passed the temperament test, wherein Labrador Retrievers had a 92% passing rate.

To quote you: "You need to research before you spout off ignorant remarks that are false." Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

 

[ecmst12]

97.2% of statistics are made up on the spot....

 

[Proserpina]

97.2% of statistics are made up on the spot....

Nu uh!!! Say it ain't so!

 

[HappyWanderer]

Actually, I think the proper ratio for all things is 80/20.

 

[mike6623]

97.2% of statistics are made up on the spot....

You are right, actually the CDC admitted that they got most of their "statistics" about pit bulls from media outlets......say it ain't so.

 

[mike6623]

You say "american pit bull terriers placed higher with the american temperment testing society above labs...." and then you say "pit bull is not a breed." So which is it?

American pit bull terrier is a breed. They are the only BREED with the term "pit bull" in it's name. The law, ignorant people, and news orginizations use the term "pit bull" to describe about 25 differnts BREEDS. When you hear of someone with an 80lb "pit bull" it is not an american pit bull terrier, they do not get that big. Just like the word lab, it is used to decribe many differrent breeds, although lab, itself, is not a breed. American pit bull terrier, staffordshire bull terrier, american staffordshire terrier, bull terrier, american bulldog, presa canarios, cane corsos, boxers, and bullmastiffs all get labled as pit bulls when they are completley different breeds bred for completely different purposes.

As I stated before, pit bull is a slang term, a generic term to describe a "type" of dog with a certain look. 90% of the alleged pit bull attacks you hear about are involving dogs simply called "pit bulls" when in fact they are not american pit bull terriers.

 

[ecmst12]

There goes another percentage being thrown around without a source...

 

[Zigner]

If it walks like a duck and quack likes a duck


Ok, bottom line: Your constitutional rights are not being violated. Period. Even if, and or but.

 

[cyjeff]

Okay... let's circle this back around to the original question.

One.... this is not a constitutional issue. Dogs are not protected by constitutional protections... up to and including "innocent until proven guilty".

Two... it is perfectly legal for a jurisdiction to limit animals of any kind in a given area. This has been repeatedly proven through zoning law that prohibits farm animals in a city... for instance.

The jurisdiction is classifying pit bulls (and don't even start with me.. I am VERY familiar with the breed) as dangerous.

There are people that say a tiger isn't dangerous... I still don't want one living next door.

 

[HappyWanderer]

Just to reinforce what cyjeff said, I ate a steak tonight. Someone, somewhere, killed a cow or bull just because I wanted to eat him. (Actually, because I was willing to pay for the privilege.)

The animal had no rights. In essence, I had it killed because of my whim.

What Constitutional rights do you think the animal had? On a WHIM, I had it KILLED. Not proud of it, but the government did not step in to stop me. (Besides, it was yummy.)

 

[mike6623]

As I stated in a different thread, I know animals have no rights, BUT dogs, in Ohio are considered property and the 14th amendment states no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. How is it that 12 other states have outlawed such legislation on the grounds of it being unconstitutional?