Unequal application of law - dog permits

[joephys73]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? GA

The city of Atlanta resides within two counties: Fulton and Dekalb. The Atlanta code of ordinances contains a rule requiring dog owners, residing in the Dekalb portion of the city, to obtain a dog permit. Dog owners in the Fulton County portion of the city are not required to permit or register their dogs with the city.

I'm just curious how a municipality can legally enact laws which only affect a subset of it's inhabitants. Such a law seems discriminatory on its face because it is not equally applied to all citizens.

 

[ecmst12]

Each county is allowed to enact its own laws and ordinances. If you don't like the laws in one, move to the other.

 

[joephys73]

I'm well aware that each county is able to enact its own ordinances. I didn't mention anything about a county ordinance, I mentioned a CITY ordinance that only applies to residents residing in a particular part of that CITY.

I also didn't mention anything about not liking a particular law, I asked about the legality of a law within a specific jurisdiction (the city of Atlanta) which only applies to SOME of the people living within that jurisdiction.

All that aside, I have to assume, ecmst12, that you do not live in the United States based on your 'if you don't like it, move' comment. Here in the United States, if you don't like a law you can try to change it - either by petitioning various elected officials or challenging it in a court of law. If it's an illegal, unconstitutional, or unjust law, the people enforcing it are law breakers; the people fighting or disregarding it are patriotic. The people who say "if you don't like it move" are _______'s

In theory it's a great system. It sure beats roaming around like a gypsy while you read through each city's, county's, and state's thousands of pages of laws hoping to find a geographic location where you agree with every said law.

That said, I'm not ready to say that this ordinance is illegal, unconstitutional or unjust, I'm simply looking for input that may help resolve the apparent inequality of it.

 

[seniorjudge]

I'm well aware that each county is able to enact its own ordinances. I didn't mention anything about a county ordinance, I mentioned a CITY ordinance that only applies to residents residing in a particular part of that CITY.

I also didn't mention anything about not liking a particular law, I asked about the legality of a law within a specific jurisdiction (the city of Atlanta) which only applies to SOME of the people living within that jurisdiction.

All that aside, I have to assume, ecmst12, that you do not live in the United States based on your 'if you don't like it, move' comment. Here in the United States, if you don't like a law you can try to change it - either by petitioning various elected officials or challenging it in a court of law. If it's an illegal, unconstitutional, or unjust law, the people enforcing it are law breakers; the people fighting or disregarding it are patriotic. The people who say "if you don't like it move" are _______'s

In theory it's a great system. It sure beats roaming around like a gypsy while you read through each city's, county's, and state's thousands of pages of laws hoping to find a geographic location where you agree with every said law.

That said, I'm not ready to say that this ordinance is illegal, unconstitutional or unjust, I'm simply looking for input that may help resolve the apparent inequality of it.

Post the ordinance in question in full here.

 

[seniorjudge]

DOG BITE LAW - Georgia

 

[seniorjudge]

DOG BITE LAW - Georgia

According to that website, Georgia dog bite laws are complicated, unclear, and generally screwed up.

I'll bet we can't solve it on an internet forum.

 

[joephys73]

Post the ordinance in question in full here.

Part II Sec. 18-61. - Applicability to portion of city within DeKalb County.

(a) Generally. The following shall apply to that portion of the city within DeKalb County:
...

(4) Duty of owner of dog to secure annual permit. The owner or possessor of each dog who shall own or shall possess the dog on January 1 of each year shall, within 30 days thereafter and not later than when the dog shall be six months of age, and the owner and possessor of each dog which shall be acquired or possessed after January 1 of each year shall, within 30 days thereafter or by the time the dog is six months of age, obtain from the designated enforcement agency an owner's permit and pay an annual owner's permit fee of $3.00 per dog, with the maximum charge per family of $10.00, regardless of the number of dogs six months old or over.​

ARTICLE III. - DOGS

Searching through the rest of the city ordinances, this particular title appears to be the only one that applies to "that portion of the city within DeKalb County". This is what prompted the original post. It just seems strange to me that an ordinance would be applied to only a subset of city residents.

Again, I'm not necessarily complaining (it's only a $3 fee), I'm just perplexed.

 

[CdwJava]

I'm guessing that the dog laws in question or issues of COUNTY ordinances and not city ordinances. Hence the reason there are two different rules.

After reading the regulations (18-61 and 18-62), at least one of them (18-62) specifically references the Fulton County Health Code. And since enforcement seems to be done by county and not city officers, I suspect the city has no specific city-based regulation here. This is further reinforced by section 18-1 that states:

Sec. 18-1. - Enforcement.

The mayor may negotiate and execute contracts with the boards of public health of Fulton and DeKalb Counties to effectuate the enforcement of this chapter within their respective counties. ​

So, this is a county issue not a city one and that is why the discrepancy.

 

[joephys73]

The mayor may negotiate and execute contracts with the boards of public health of Fulton and DeKalb Counties to effectuate the enforcement of this chapter within their respective counties. [/I][/indent]
So, this is a county issue not a city one and that is why the discrepancy.

I noticed that section too. I can appreciate the complexities of a city straddling two separate counties.

It turns out Fulton has pet registration rules while Dekalb does not. I still find it a bit strange that Dekalb County, not having county-wide pet registration rules, had one created for it by the city (this rule is enforced by, and funds collected by, the Dekalb Animal Control).

I suppose it's to bring a little consistency within city limits since those living in the Fulton part of the city have county registration rules for pets (dogs, cats, and ferrets). I wonder why the city ordinance in question only address dogs then though. But you what they say, 'the law is the law'