| Home » |
browse topics:
sticky stories,
fatal attacks,
dog law & bsl,
senior citizens,
family dog attacks,
police shootings,
dogfighting,
pit bull owners,
postal service,
criminal trials,
roaming dogs,
horse attacks,
livestock attacks,
dog attacks,
victims
|
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Arkansas Group (ROADS) Files in Federal Court to Stop Pit Bull Ban
 Court Dogfight Over Ban Targets 4 Cities
UPDATED: 1/18/08: In the second time this week, a constitutional challenge has been filed in federal court against ordinances that regulate pit bulls. In this instance, a challenge has been filed concerning ordinances that ban pit bulls in four central Arkansas cities.
Responsible Owners of Arkansas Dogs (ROADS), an organization that calls itself an "animal welfare group" -- not to be confused with Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States (RDOWS), who purports to protect the civil and constitutional rights of dog owners -- is behind the court filing. Roger Schnyer, the founder and director of ROADS claims that misinformation lies behind such bans.Mr. Schnyer also claims that many breed-specific bans are enacted without legal consultation. DogsBite.org greatly challenges this statement. State Supreme Courts in Colorado, Washington, Iowa and Ohio are just a few state Supreme Courts that have upheld the constitutionality of pit bull bans. Moreover, city and district attorney's who help write and enact such legislation are by definition "legal consultants." In the instance of Arkansas, Lonoke City Attorney Randy Grice drafted the ban on pit bulls based upon legislation upheld by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Mr. Grice said: "We relied heavily on Maumelle’s city ordinance, which was upheld as constitutional by the Arkansas Supreme Court. We went to great lengths to ensure due process is met. We didn’t just haphazardly draw this up." Though this is exactly what Mr. Schnyer and his followers would have the public believe. Additionally, he would have us believe that it is "scientifically impossible to determine the breed of a mixed-breed dog or its origin." This is completely inaccurate -- multiple State Supreme Courts have agreed. Labels: Constitutional
|
posted by bitbypit | permalink |
3 comments
|
|   
|
|
|
3 comments:
Dogs are property and may be regulated by legislatures via the US Constitution. The law is already settled on this matter.
In Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton Railroad, 166 U.S. 698, 702 (1897), the U.S. Supreme Court declared that “even if it were assumed that dogs are property in the fullest sense of the word, they would still be subject to the police power of the state and might be destroyed or otherwise dealt with as in the judgment of the legislature is necessary for the protection of its citizens.”
Additionally, the US Southern District Court found in Vanater v. Village of South Point, 717 F. Supp. 1236 (S.D. Ohio 1989)... "The Court finds that the Ordinance is a reasonable response to the special threat presented by the Pit Bull dog breed based upon their phenotypical characteristics and the traits which have been bred into the breed by their owners in order that the animals may suit the purposes of their owners. The evidence indicates that Pit Bulls possess the inherent characteristics of exceptional aggression, athleticism, strength, viciousness and unpredictability which are unique to the breed; they possess an extraordinary fighting temperament and have been shown to be the most tenacious dog of any breed; they have a history of unpredictably and instantaneously attacking in a berserk and frenzied rage and have the ability to inflict significant damage upon their victims. While this description is not true of every Pit Bull, the Court must defer to the legislature's consideration of the conflicting positions. This Court should not substitute its judgment for the reasoned findings and decision of the Village of South Point Council."
by
1/10/2008 4:05 AM | Flag as abusive
And gee, this recent ruling settles things now doesn't it?
United States Supreme Court Leaves Intact Ohio Supreme Court’s Ruling that Breed-Specific Legislation is Constitutional
by
2/26/2008 11:52 PM | Flag as abusive
It seems Roger Schnyer from ROADS, used to be aligned with Cherie Graves from RDOWS, but they had a little tit-for-tat over exactly who could sign their names to this outlandish legislation --These guys even argue about who gets to be on the losing side!
Public statements lead to squabble among dog lovers
"On the other hand, Schnyer said he resigned (from RDOWS) on his own after refusing to take the statements back. “I have the constitutional right to freedom of speech,” said Schnyer, “that is the very same constitution we are using to overturn breed specific legislation. Nobody is going to censor me.”
Schnyer also refused to comply with another request of RDOWS including adding their name to the federal suit. Graves said RDOWS has helped Schnyer with the federal case by providing training, research, secretarial help, press releases and $200 in seed money.
“We’ve had other dog-interest organizations contact us and they have a agreed to step in and help with our federal suit,” said Schnyer, who said he would be returning the seed money to RDOWS. “The lawsuit is solid.”
by
2/27/2008 12:22 AM | Flag as abusive
Post a Comment »
|
|
|
|
| recent posts |
|
 |
|
|
| recent archives |
|
|
|
|
|
