Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Discussions and Dog Talk Forums > Dog News and Articles


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-24-2011, 01:15 PM
Lilavati's Avatar
Lilavati Lilavati is offline
Arbitrary and Capricious
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 7,643
Default Nasty Anti-Dog Law Proposed in Texas

Got dog? Texas legislation is gunning for you | PetConnection.com
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer. Nothing I say should be taken as legal advice.

The Court's extensive review of these pages serves as a useful reminder that loaded guns, sharp objects and law degrees should be kept out of the reach of children.

-- United States Magistrate Judge Paul Cleary




Laughing Shadows Bead & Design: http://www.laughingshadows.com
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-24-2011, 03:10 PM
Alex Fields Alex Fields is offline
Big Time Dog Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1
Default

wow I had not heard about this bill. If I lived there it would certainly make it almost impossible to have my dog. I am for being a responsible dog owner and you should always be aware of possible problems but this is going to far in Government control and I believe will just end up causing more problems.
__________________
Bling Bling Puppy The place to shop for your dog.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-24-2011, 04:34 PM
release the hounds release the hounds is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,104
Default

you're an attorney, so if you wouldn't mind, I'm going to ask your take on this.

I'm inclined to believe that property can not be deemed dangerous just by being. That is the way I understood the law when I read it quite a while ago regarding BSL.

Meaning that a car by nature isn't dangerous. It can be if you repeatedly drive drunk or reckless or speed to much to often or use it in any dangerous manner, it can be taken from you, but it can't be "banned" in society. Now certainly there are restrictions in types that are allowed on streets, but not in what you can own really and it is much easier to define car regulations in that they are pretty exact unlike dog breeds which just in one litter can vary tremendously so there really is no uniform way to accurately guage anything between breeds.

So how come more BSL ordinances aren't contested? Money? Time? nobody really cares? or is it that the law concerning property doesn't really say something can't be deemed dangerous without being used in a dangerous manner?

Like a golden retriever can't be banned because it's dangerous if it's never committed a dangerous act. It can't be deemed dangerous till it does so. But if it does then it can then be deemed dangerous and in effect, ban you from owning that particular one.

That is how I understood the law, but it's been years since I've read it, and even then I wasn't quite sure, and I don't know where to look again. I supposed I could google, but i'm lazy
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-24-2011, 06:57 PM
corgipower's Avatar
corgipower corgipower is offline
Tweleve Enthusiest
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: here
Posts: 8,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by release the hounds View Post
or is it that the law concerning property doesn't really say something can't be deemed dangerous without being used in a dangerous manner?
The thing about dogs being "property" is that they're a bit of a unique type of "property".

A car is dangerous, but it's not likely to be dangerous without a human involved. A dog OTOH can very well go out and bite someone all on his own.

Keep in mind too, I can hit my TV in with a baseball bat and no one cares, and if I starve my plants until they die, that's totally fine also.
__________________
The slayer of all things happy since 2010
Kibble feeder since 1973

Extreme owner of four herding dogs

puzzles, poetry and so much more ~ Doggy Puzzles created by me
sleep!!!
My dog Votes!
proud member of the MUMS 2009 7th place team CISRA 2009 1st place team SUMS 2009 2nd place team
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-24-2011, 07:13 PM
Lilavati's Avatar
Lilavati Lilavati is offline
Arbitrary and Capricious
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 7,643
Default

Well, there's no simple answer to that question, RTH. There are several reasons why they don't get challanged.

One, very rarely are they enforced against the sort of people who have the resources to fight it. To fight a law like that costs money, and a lot of it . . . or a very determined pro bono lawyer. Moreover, often the dog is killed halfway through the challenge, meaning the court will dismiss it as moot.

Two, in terms of constitutional issues, the key with BSL is something called rational basis review. A town is perfectly free to pass a law banning all dogs. If you don't like it, you can move. (I know that's absurd, but there you go) But to ban some dogs they have to show that all dog owners have "equal protection" under the laws. Unless the equal protection issue involves a distinction that is subject to special scrutiny, such as race, or gender or religious faith, the law is evaluated under what is called a "rational basis" review. Basically, is there a "rational basis" for denying owners of disfavored dog breeds "equal protection" of the laws . . i.e. to discrimate against them by confiscating and destroying thier property?

No, you say, there is no rational basis. I agree. Unfortunately, "rational basis" review is utterly toothless. As long as they can provide a reason, any reason at all, that is not clearly the rantings of a madman, its going to pass the review in most courts. A pile of news articles blaming "pit bulls" for dog bites is enough to pass "rational basis" review in most cases.

Now, some BSL laws have been struck down as "void for vagueness". Laws have to be clear enough that people can know if they are breaking them. So a law banning, say, American Staffordshire Terriers, is not void for vagueness. But a law banning "pit bulls" and giving a description so broad it could apply to dozens of breeds and hordes of mixes can be "void for vagueness" because there's no reliable way to determine if a dog is a "pit bull" so someone might not know they were breaking the law. Moreover, there have been enough DNA tests of purported pit bulls that turned out to be no such thing that some judges have taken notice.

So . .there's the short answer.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not YOUR lawyer. Nothing I say should be taken as legal advice.

The Court's extensive review of these pages serves as a useful reminder that loaded guns, sharp objects and law degrees should be kept out of the reach of children.

-- United States Magistrate Judge Paul Cleary




Laughing Shadows Bead & Design: http://www.laughingshadows.com
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-25-2011, 07:42 AM
release the hounds release the hounds is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,104
Default

short answer? I was hoping for the long

But thank you, it makes more sense now
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 AM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site