If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Problems with breed specific banning
Areas that try to ban specific breeds run into the problem that the owners
of the dog are protected by the fourteenth amendment in the USA. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Problems with breed specific banning
in rec.pets.dogs.behavior, "Greens" wrote in
: Areas that try to ban specific breeds run into the problem that the owners of the dog are protected by the fourteenth amendment in the USA. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf And how exactly does the 14th amendment protect dog owners?? -- Marcel Beaudoin and Moogli |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Problems with breed specific banning
"Marcel Beaudoin" wrote in message . 1.4... in rec.pets.dogs.behavior, "Greens" wrote in : Areas that try to ban specific breeds run into the problem that the owners of the dog are protected by the fourteenth amendment in the USA. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf And how exactly does the 14th amendment protect dog owners?? -- Marcel Beaudoin and Moogli The dog isn't protected. The owner is protected. All dogs have teeth. In theory any of them can inflict a bite. If a specific breed is singled out for banishment, it violates the owner's 14th amendment rights giving equal protection. I don't really understand it, but there is a search box on the linked page. Type in "amendment" and it'll take you to the rather brief explanation. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Problems with breed specific banning
"Greens" wrote
in rec.pets.dogs.behavior: "Marcel Beaudoin" wrote in message . 1.4... in rec.pets.dogs.behavior, "Greens" wrote in : Areas that try to ban specific breeds run into the problem that the owners of the dog are protected by the fourteenth amendment in the USA. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf And how exactly does the 14th amendment protect dog owners?? The dog isn't protected. The owner is protected. All dogs have teeth. In theory any of them can inflict a bite. If a specific breed is singled out for banishment, it violates the owner's 14th amendment rights giving equal protection. I don't really understand it, but there is a search box on the linked page. Type in "amendment" and it'll take you to the rather brief explanation. First of all, your linked page is a .pdf file, so you might want to check to make sure you linked to the right page. Second, the 14th amendment is, IIRC, about equal protection under the law being guaranteed to all citizens (or words to that effect). Now I may be Canadian, and so therefore not familiar with all of the ins and outs of the US constitution, but I am pretty sure dog ownership is not protected by the constitution. -- Marcel and Moogli |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Problems with breed specific banning
"Marcel Beaudoin" wrote in message .. . "Greens" wrote in rec.pets.dogs.behavior: "Marcel Beaudoin" wrote in message . 1.4... in rec.pets.dogs.behavior, "Greens" wrote in : Areas that try to ban specific breeds run into the problem that the owners of the dog are protected by the fourteenth amendment in the USA. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf And how exactly does the 14th amendment protect dog owners?? The dog isn't protected. The owner is protected. All dogs have teeth. In theory any of them can inflict a bite. If a specific breed is singled out for banishment, it violates the owner's 14th amendment rights giving equal protection. I don't really understand it, but there is a search box on the linked page. Type in "amendment" and it'll take you to the rather brief explanation. First of all, your linked page is a .pdf file, so you might want to check to make sure you linked to the right page. Second, the 14th amendment is, IIRC, about equal protection under the law being guaranteed to all citizens (or words to that effect). Now I may be Canadian, and so therefore not familiar with all of the ins and outs of the US constitution, but I am pretty sure dog ownership is not protected by the constitution. -- Marcel and Moogli It is a pdf and as you can see it's from the CDC or The Center for Disease Control. It has the .gov in the address. It's from 2000, but I'm sure they know more about the US constitution and it's application to breed specific legislation than either of us do. There is a search box for this page under your address bar if you have any doubts. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Problems with breed specific banning
"Greens" wrote
in rec.pets.dogs.behavior: "Marcel Beaudoin" wrote in message .. . "Greens" wrote in rec.pets.dogs.behavior: "Marcel Beaudoin" wrote in message . 1.4... in rec.pets.dogs.behavior, "Greens" wrote in : Areas that try to ban specific breeds run into the problem that the owners of the dog are protected by the fourteenth amendment in the USA. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/dogbreeds.pdf And how exactly does the 14th amendment protect dog owners?? The dog isn't protected. The owner is protected. All dogs have teeth. In theory any of them can inflict a bite. If a specific breed is singled out for banishment, it violates the owner's 14th amendment rights giving equal protection. I don't really understand it, but there is a search box on the linked page. Type in "amendment" and it'll take you to the rather brief explanation. First of all, your linked page is a .pdf file, so you might want to check to make sure you linked to the right page. Second, the 14th amendment is, IIRC, about equal protection under the law being guaranteed to all citizens (or words to that effect). Now I may be Canadian, and so therefore not familiar with all of the ins and outs of the US constitution, but I am pretty sure dog ownership is not protected by the constitution. It is a pdf and as you can see it's from the CDC or The Center for Disease Control. It has the .gov in the address. It's from 2000, but I'm sure they know more about the US constitution and it's application to breed specific legislation than either of us do. There is a search box for this page under your address bar if you have any doubts. Did you actually read the .pdf?? They say that constitutional questions have been raised, not that it violates the constution. They also say that despite people raising such arguments, BSLs have been upheld. And as a point, the CDC is not an authority on the constitution. -- Marcel and Moogli |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Problems with breed specific banning
That's unfortunate, but it's still necessary. Some breeds of dogs are
unacceptably likely to attack somebody, with horrible consequences. You can imagine what went through the mind of a 64 year old woman from my area a couple of years back when she was savagely torn to pieces by 5 pit bulls, those last few seconds when she knew she was going to die, just as she felt her face being ripped off. Think about it. Just think about it. Of course, there are "nice" pit bulls, too - I've seen many of them - but that's not enough to compensate for their potential danger. Most people wouldn't misuse a machine gun or hand grenade, so they should be legal too, right? You get the point. Ron M. (reply only to group) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Problems with breed specific banning
In article ,
elegy wrote: and people who are mauled by other breeds somehow have a different experience? You know, they actually might. Someone who freaks out at pit bulls and wants to call cops and lawyers and whatnot might react to being bitten by a Golden Retriever by saying "ouch!" People perceive breeds differently, and the hysteria around pit bulls tends to lead to more hysteria. Unfortunately, a lot of people think that the laws ought to be based in their biases. -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Problems with breed specific banning
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
OT- constitutions Problems with breed specific banning
Marcel Beaudoin wrote:
Second, the 14th amendment is, IIRC, about equal protection under the law being guaranteed to all citizens (or words to that effect). Now I may be Canadian, and so therefore not familiar with all of the ins and outs of the US constitution, but I am pretty sure dog ownership is not protected by the constitution. Is there a Canadian equivalent to the U.S. 14th amendment? Has it ever been tested, in the sense of a government trying to deny a citizen the protection of the justice system? How's it worded in Canada? --Lia, living with a Canadian and still baffled by them |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Best Place to Post Information About Repealing California's New Breed-Specific Law? | [email protected] | Dogs - general | 1 | November 15th 05 02:47 AM |
Best Place to Post Information About Repealing California's New Breed-Specific Law? | [email protected] | Dog rescue | 1 | November 15th 05 02:47 AM |
California Breed Specific Laws | [email protected] | Dog behavior | 0 | September 26th 05 08:04 PM |
consuming prey: a breed specific trait? | culprit | Dog breeds | 26 | January 11th 05 03:45 AM |
action alert... Colorado about to outlaw breed specific legislation!!! | EmilyS | Dog behavior | 0 | April 21st 04 10:01 PM |