It's a front for much more. Clearly the intent is to establish a legal foothold in the Florida Constitution that can be used to go after legitimate activities, such as but not limited to, lure coursing, herding competitions, hunting, terrier go-to-ground events, Parson Jack Russell terrier races at horse shows and county fairs, agility, flyball, dock diving and even 4-H events.
March 17, Ban "Pit Bull" as used in this ordinance means: No person shall harbor, keep or maintain within the City limits of the City of South Milwaukee any Pit Bull which was not currently registered and licensed by the City of South Milwaukee on or before April 1, This prohibition shall not be applied to animals being transported through the City limits of the City of South Milwaukee within a one-hour period of time and to dogs exempted under Sec.
A pup born to a female Pit Bull licensed and registered pursuant to paragraphs 8 A and 13 hereof shall be removed from the City of South Milwaukee before the date on which it is required to be licensed pursuant to ChapterWis. Campbell summarized the legal challenges and the general court findings as of July Court cases challenging BSL have focused on constitutional concerns such as substantive due process, equal protection, and vagueness.
Most BSL will survive the minimum scrutiny analysis allowed by the due process clauses of the Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because there is no fundamental right at issue.
This analysis requires that the law being challenged must be rationally related to a legitimate government goal or purpose. Because state and local jurisdictions enjoy broad police powers, including protecting the public's safety and welfare, courts have not had trouble finding that BSL is rationally related to the goal of protecting the public from allegedly dangerous breeds.
This has caused big problems for many who use them as police, guide or other service dogs, as they are not always excluded, and in some cases are confiscated and put down. Challenges based on equal protection arguments are similarly difficult to sustain.
Here courts are looking at whether there is a rational purpose for treating pit bull breeds differently from Breed specific legislation dog breeds. Dog owners have attacked the rational purpose requirement by arguing either that BSL is over-inclusive, because it bans all dogs of a breed when only certain individuals within the breed have proven to be vicious, or under-inclusive, because many types of dogs have injured people and the BSL fails to include those other breeds.
However, again under minimum scrutiny review, BSL will survive as long as the government can establish that the BSL is rationally related to its purpose, even if the law is found to be over-inclusive or under-inclusive.
Claims that BSL is unconstitutionally vague have brought dog owners mixed success. Procedural due process requires that laws provide the public with sufficient notice of the activity or conduct being regulated or banned.
Here owners of pit bulls or other banned breeds argue that the breed ban laws do not adequately define just what is a "pit bull" or other banned breed for purposes of the ban. Another argument is that the laws are too vague to help the dog-owning public or the BSL enforcement agency—such as animal control or police—to be able to identify whether a dog falls under the BSL if the dog was adopted with an unknown origin or is a mixed breed.
Sentell sued the New Orleans and Carrollton Railroad Company to recover the value of his female Newfoundland dog that he alleged to have been negligently killed by the railroad company.
The company claimed that Louisiana law held that only people who licensed their dogs were entitled to sue for compensation if the dog were killed, and that Mr. Sentell was not entitled to damages since he had not licensed his dog. The trial court in Orleans Parish found for Mr.
The Louisiana Supreme Court declined to hear the case, so Mr. Sentell then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Stateswhich agreed to hear the case. The Supreme Court ruled against Mr.
Sentell and established the precedent in U. It is true that under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state can deprive a person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, but in determining what is due process of law, we are bound to consider the nature of the property, the necessity for its sacrifice, and the extent to which it has heretofore been regarded as within the police power.
So far as property is inoffensive or harmless, it can only be condemned or destroyed by legal proceedings, with due notice to the owner; but, so far as it is dangerous to the safety or health of the community, due process of law may authorize its summary destruction Although dogs are ordinarily harmless, they preserve some of their hereditary wolfish instincts, which occasionally break forth in the destruction of sheep and other helpless animals.
Others, too small to attack these animals, are simply vicious, noisy, and pestilent. As their depredations are often committed at night, it is usually impossible to identify the dog or to fix the liability upon the owner, who, moreover, is likely to be pecuniarily irresponsible [irresponsible with money].
In short, the damages are usually such as are beyond the reach of judicial process, and legislation of a drastic nature is necessary to protect persons and property from destruction and annoyance.
Such legislation is clearly within the police power of the state. It ordinarily takes the form of a license tax, and the identification of the dog by a collar and tag, upon which the name of the owner is sometimes required to be engraved, but other remedies are not uncommon.
Village of South Point[ edit ] In Vanater v. Village of South Point, F. Ohiothe Ohio federal district court held that the criminal ordinance of South Point, Ohio prohibiting the owning or harboring of pit bull terriers within the village limits was not overly broad, concluding: The Court concludes that the definitions of a Pit Bull Terrier in this Ordinance are not unconstitutionally vague.The Tibetan Terrier.
The Tibetan Terrier is a medium sized dog (averaging 14 –16 inches at the shoulder, 20 – 24 pounds) whose most dramatic physical characteristic might be its long, profuse, double coat, which comes in a wide variety of colors including white, black, gold, and many combinations. Breed-specific legislation (BSL) targets specific breeds of dogs that are wrongly thought to all be dangerous – most frequently "pit bull types" – and places stricter regulations on these dogs or even makes ownership of them illegal.
Q: What is breed-specific legislation (BSL)? Breed-specific legislation is a type of dangerous dog law. It is defined as any ordinance or policy that pertains to a specific dog breed or several breeds, but does not affect any others.
Breed-specific Legislation. Across the country, communities have attempted to reduce the incidence of serious and fatal dog bites by restricting the ownership of certain types of dogs, most often pit bulls.
counties, towns and countries, and is a detriment to the survival of the Pit Bull. All owners should concern themselves with the matter of BSL. Breed Specific Legislation, i.e.
targeting a particular breed such as American Pit Bull Terriers, has generally been discredited in actual experience of cities, professionals and academic research as being both ineffective and expensive.”.