Vicous dog laws

[Alex23]

So...what am I wrong about?

Apparently you are harboring a dangerous breed and don't have the appropriate insurance.

 

[mike6623]

Apparently you are harboring a dangerous breed and don't have the appropriate insurance.

Not at all, I am in compliance with state law (which I disagree with) but our city has a one "dangerous" dog per household clause in its ordinance, the state does not. As I said prior, dangerous means, in my case, looks a certain way. I have no problem with keeping dangerous dog laws in place, but im opposed to the laws being breed specific.

And Alex....why was it so apparent to you I was not in compliance? Did you not read my first post? And i have no dangerous animals, I have animals that are not dangerous. My neighbor has 2 rottweilers(which are human agressive) yet he has no problems owning those dogs and needs nothing to own them except the registration everyone needs to own a dog.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

They have the right to come and take one of my dogs (my property) just because of the way it looks, not because of the way it acts. I should be given an opportunity to prove that my dog is not dangerous. A vet, a bahaviorist, or an animal warden could all attest to that.

By the way, meth labs,and marijuana are not even comarable to dogs. That is illegal drugs and drug trade. It has no similarity to the behavor of dogs.

Why is it that 12 states have deemed this type of legislation unconstitutional? Because they are stupid?

If someone hit your car, and they were driving a toyota and when the police wrote the report they said it was a Honda you would be making sure that the correct make and model of the care was documented, no? What is the cop said, well...they both look the same and they are both asian cars so they basically the same. That is what they do with these dogs, if you have a dog that looks like a apbt, than you have an apbt, when in fact you may have a lab/boxer mix. And you could be fined for not having the proper insurance, fence etc.

I was responding specifically to your constitutional argument regarding the seizure of property. So far, nobody has seized your property, and I suspect they won't. That's not to say they won't issue a $1000 per day fine for failure to comply with an ordinance.

If they decide they are going to seize your property, you can rest assured there will be due process, involving a hearing that will provide you with notice and a right to be heard.

When that happens, I don't expect you will prevail, but you will have due process.

 

[justalayman]

you might try arguing the ordinance on it being vague and as such, not legally enforceable. Since there is a "pit bull' (American Pit Bull Terrier) yet you claim they are arbitrarily applying it to many different breeds, unless they have defined what breeds are included in the control, the ordinance is overly vague as you, nor any reasonable person would not be able to understand exactly what breeds they are referring to.



To prevail, you will have to be ticketed or what ever they do to enforce the ordinance and then contest it on on it being overly vague.

that means you would very likely have to fight this through at least one court but it could be several levels. I doubt you would find much outside financial support for this so it will probably be out of your pocket.