Pit bull bans and restrictions are illegal. The problem is that you have to fight them in court. But, here is some good news for US residents... (Colorado... are you listening? Since these bans are illegal, then your state will be sued for tens of millions of dollars in damages for all those pit bulls you illegally seized and killed!!!)
A Toledo law singling out pit bulls has been struck down by a state appeals court.
The city ordinance said residents could own just one "vicious" dog, and defined that as one that has bitten or killed a human, has killed another dog -- or is a pit bull.
On a 2-1 vote, the appeals court judges called the law unreasonable and discriminatory.
Here is more of the ruling in detail…
"Since we conclude that there is no evidence that pit bulls are inherently dangerous or vicious, then the city ordinance limitation on ownership is also arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory," Judge Skow wrote. "If a citizen may own more than one nonvicious dog of a particular breed, then ownership of more than one nonvicious pit bull has no rational, real, or substantial relationship to a legitimate government interest."
Glen Bui, the vice president of American Canine Foundation, said his organization supported Mr. Tellings and his attorney, Sol Zyndorf. He said his organization has long advocated for stricter laws against dogs that have proven themselves vicious but has fought laws throughout the country that point to all pit bulls as dangerous.
Mr. Bui called yesterday's ruling "monumental." He said attempts to create breed-specific legislation have "gotten out of control" across the country.
"This is the first time ever in the United States that a published opinion has ruled that breed-specific legislation is unconstitutional," he said.
This proves what we’ve been saying all along. You can't just pass a law to do anything to anyone in this country. We have the US Constitution. USE IT, FIGHT BACK AND YOU WILL WIN!!!
A Toledo law singling out pit bulls has been struck down by a state appeals court.
The city ordinance said residents could own just one "vicious" dog, and defined that as one that has bitten or killed a human, has killed another dog -- or is a pit bull.
On a 2-1 vote, the appeals court judges called the law unreasonable and discriminatory.
Here is more of the ruling in detail…
"Since we conclude that there is no evidence that pit bulls are inherently dangerous or vicious, then the city ordinance limitation on ownership is also arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory," Judge Skow wrote. "If a citizen may own more than one nonvicious dog of a particular breed, then ownership of more than one nonvicious pit bull has no rational, real, or substantial relationship to a legitimate government interest."
Glen Bui, the vice president of American Canine Foundation, said his organization supported Mr. Tellings and his attorney, Sol Zyndorf. He said his organization has long advocated for stricter laws against dogs that have proven themselves vicious but has fought laws throughout the country that point to all pit bulls as dangerous.
Mr. Bui called yesterday's ruling "monumental." He said attempts to create breed-specific legislation have "gotten out of control" across the country.
"This is the first time ever in the United States that a published opinion has ruled that breed-specific legislation is unconstitutional," he said.
This proves what we’ve been saying all along. You can't just pass a law to do anything to anyone in this country. We have the US Constitution. USE IT, FIGHT BACK AND YOU WILL WIN!!!
1 comment:
You are 100% right! I am an APBT owner from Wilmington, Delaware, and last night I used facts from that very case to help us win an 11-2 vote against new restrictions in New Castle County. Everyone should read the Ohio ruling, it has facts that the legislators cannot ignore- actual court rulings!
Post a Comment