BSL is Unconstitutional
Breed specific legislation (BSL), regulation or ordinances that single out specific breeds of dogs for banning or strictures is unconstitutional. BSL has been ruled unconstitutional in Court venues across the United States on grounds ranging from vagueness, to an infringement of property rights, to equal treatment, equal protection.
Dogs have been the domesticated traditional property of human beings for well over thirty-five thousand years. This tradition gives legal standing to dog owners based upon the IX Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America.
BSL violates the rights granted under the 14th Amendment to the Bill of Rights. BSL particularly violates the equal protection and due process clauses in the 14th amendment The 14th amendment is commonly referred to as citizens' civil liberties. The 14th amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
BSL violates the rights granted under the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
BSL violates the rights granted under Sixth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
BSL violates the rights granted under Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Title 42 > Chapter 21 > Subchapter I > Â§ 1983
Â§ 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights . Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Title 42 > Chapter 21 > Subchapter I > Â§ 1982
Â§ 1982. Property rights of citizens All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every
State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.
United States Code Rules of Reason
Laws must be reasonable.
It is not reasonable to write animal behaviors, legal punishments, and criminal labels for animals into statutes that are enacted to structure human society.
Animals must not be criminalized under laws that are intended to protect human rights, and to control human behaviors.
It is unreasonable to write animal behavior into laws that no animal has the capacity to understand, answer to, or to function under.
It is unreasonable to mete out criminal labels to animals, i.e. dangerous, or potentially dangerous. It is unreasonable to prescribe punishments to animals under our laws.
It is unreasonable to remove the human owner from blame, or culpability for the actions of his/her animal(s).
It is unreasonable to assume that every dog of a given breed, or physical appearance will behave in exactly the same manner.
It is unreasonable to assume that every owner of every dog of a given breed, or physical appearance is irresponsible, negligent, or careless with his/her animal(s).
Human error, carelessness, or negligence is the underlying factor behind every dog attack.
Given the actual figures of severe dog attacks, or fatalities related to dog attacks per capita in the United States of America, dogs are not the threat to human life that the sensationalistic media, and urban myth would portray. other content
Examples where Constitutionality was Challenged
Zuniga v. San Mateo Dept. of Health Services (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1521, 267 Cal. Rptr. 2d 755. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to prove Pit Bulls have an inherent nature of being dangerous.
Carter v. Metro North Assocs. (1998) 255 A.D. 2d 251; 680 N.Y.S.2d 299 A New York appellate court determined that the alleged propensities of Pit Bull Terriers to behave more viciously than other breeds had not been authoritatively established.
American Canine Foundation litigated the city of Huntsville Alabama in 2002 in a case that was heard by the Alabama Supreme Court. Huntsville v. Four Pit Bull Puppies (Ala. 08-30-02), No.1010459, unreported. The court affirmed a trial court decision that American Pit Bull Terriers were not dangerous.
Ohio was the only state to have this type of legislation at the state level.On July 16th 2003 ACF brought forth a constitutional challenge against Ohio's state law O.R.C. 955:11 that declares the Pit Bull vicious. The case was heard in the Toledo Municipal Court. The court found the American Pit Bull Terrier was not dangerous, and granted Pit Bull owners due process. Tellings v State of Ohio CRB02-15267
In August 2004 a case American Canine Foundation assisted in was heard by the Ohio Supreme Court. State v. Cowan 103 Ohio St. 3d 144 , 2004 - Ohio - 4777 The court found ORC 955:22 violative of the right to be heard as applied to ORC955:11 which declared a specific breed of dog vicious in Ohio. The decision struck down Ohio's breed specific legislation at the state level. Ohio was the only state to have this type of legislation at the state level.
For More Information Please See:
What is BSL
What BSL Actually Does
This petition closed over 2 years ago
This will help keep families together. This will protect all breeds of service dogs which are a necessity just to do day to day activities. It will prevent local municipalities from discriminating...
This will help keep families together. This will protect all breeds of service dogs which are a necessity just to do day to day activities. It will prevent local municipalities from discriminating against certain breeds of dogs. It will help prevent local municipalities from wasting precious tax dollars on trying to enforce a potential law that costs more then its worth.