Saturday, October 29, 2005

The Right To Keep And Deploy A Dog?

My understanding is that the courts have generally ruled that a police dog is not a “weapon”, because its primary function has been to locate criminals, not attack them, which is true. So, the terminology has tended to refer to dogs as a “tool” of the police, with the biting part incidental to the location, capture, and arrest of suspects.

But, just as many legal theories are fictions made up by lawyers and the courts to get an end result that they want, without then directly delving into other sticky issues, we could first argue that our pets are just, well, pets. But, clearly, in reality, the police want the dogs along to protect them in a fight. The same is true with the military. Yes, they use the dogs to locate suspects, but what about times when they come on the scene and the suspect is readily visible and threatening? Then, the dog isn’t just a “tool”.

This, therefore, comes to where I want this debate to be taken.

Don’t citizens, just like the police, get dogs to protect them? C’mon! Let’s be honest here. Just as dogs are “tools” to the police, and the biting incidental, aren’t dogs “pets” to the Average Joe, and the biting incidental?

Then, there are guns. Guns are weapons, period. The police are allowed to use them, and so are citizens. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Yes, I know, fanatics will tell you that we don’t have the right to have a gun, but we all know that isn’t true. So, aren’t stun guns, batons, and mace considered “weapons’ by the court? Yes, they are. But they are considered as less-than-lethal weapons. Same with a police dog. The courts have acknowledged that dogs give the police another non-lethal way of dealing with criminals, and are not considered, generally, as “excessive force”. Then, why aren’t PET DOGS considered non-lethal weapons by the courts… and PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT of the US Constitution?

Maybe this kind of logic should be pressed in order to fight back against the banning of dogs. Maybe there is sufficient precedent to let a dog owner argue in court that if you get a dog as a pet and for self protection, that the lawmakers and courts can’t ban you from reasonably owning them?

Hey, you lawyers out there: Am I on the right track on this?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Hello I want to congratulate to you. This site is fantastic, looks like entertained and very good to me it elaborated. I invite them to that they explore a little on my site of the Web
Our real estate listing includes great opportunities on Costa Rica Central Valley’s provinces such as San Jose, our Capital, with remarkable cities as Escazu at the west, or Curridabat at the east, experiencing a great development on both commercial and residential properties, making their real estate pricing highly attractive to investors; on other hand, Alajuela city gathers places with a very special warm weather such as Grecia, La Garita and Atenas, or beautiful farms for agricultural, cattle or nature preservation purposes as those located on San Carlos or Sarapiqui. We also offer land properties in Guanacaste, which is the province, along with Puntarenas, with the most beautiful tropical beaches on the Pacific Coast such as Tamarindo, Playa Grande, El Coco, Playa Hermosa, Nosara, Samara, Herradura, Jaco, Manuel Antonio, Dominical and Golfito, where the real estate business occupies the first place as the local economic activity.
Great investment opportunity at Costa Rica Pacific Coast, Preconstruction condos in costa rica
Condo sales in costa rica, Retirement property in costa rica. Visit us for more info at: