Dangerous Dog Laws are Unfair

[Michael23]

It would be the same as any law applied to a foreign or aggressive animal. I don't know if alligators are banned in Ohio but presuming they are. It would be because they tend to be mean vicious animals.

So, if I wanted an alligator, should I have the right to prove that MY alligator is not mean and vicious and if my alligator is not mean and vicious, I must be allowed to have my allogator? Of course not.

since the supreme court of Ohio has accepted the fact that "pit bull" type dogs are involved in more aggressive acts and those acts tend to result in more severe injuries, they can apply a ruling to all pit bull type dogs.

That my friend, is not a good anology. Alligators and dogs are two seperate species. I am asking about property rights(dogs). The supreme court has once ruled it unconstitutional then over turned it. So which is it? Why is a pit bull more likely to be more dangerous than a rottweiler, a mastiff, a doberman, a cane corso, a great dane? They are not, it is restricting freedoms plain and simple, and they should be following suite of all of those states that have banned that type of law.

And DOGS are not foriegn nor agressive...WILD animals like alligators are.

Your alliggator analogy was quite ignorant. That was the equivilant of saying....if can have cigars.....why can't I have crack pipes? Two completley differnt things.

[CourtClerk]

Last time I checked, my kitchen table did not have the right to due process. My kitchen table and your dog are both property.

[BOR]

I am asking about property rights(dogs). The supreme court has once ruled it unconstitutional then over turned it. So which is it?

Once ruled it UNconstitutional? Do you have a citation for that, meaning a case such as I posted!

[cyjeff]

I realize that it was upheld, if it wasn't then, I wouldn'e be having this discussion. My point was, that it was FIRST ruled unconstitutional.

So what is the verdict, I know what the law says. But do YOU, believe this is a violation of constitutional rights? If not, why? I like to hear different opinions on this, but no one really defends it, unless they are actually in the situation which is so obviously discriminatory.

It does not matter what we believe. It matters what has been decided by the court.

Most discrimination is legal. just labeling something as discriminatory does not automatically make it illegal.

Dogs do not have rights as humans do. If you wish to fight it, you should plan on spending a great deal of money on the effort.

It will be far less expensive to move.

[Michael23]

It does not matter what we believe. It matters what has been decided by the court.

Most discrimination is legal. just labeling something as discriminatory does not automatically make it illegal.

Dogs do not have rights as humans do. If you wish to fight it, you should plan on spending a great deal of money on the effort.

It will be far less expensive to move.

why would I move when I have done nothing wrong? How is it, that in America, we have laws that say a domesticated animals behavior can be based on its appearance?

Regardless, the constitutions clearly states that dogs are property and I have equal protection.....and I am not being given that.

[cyjeff]

why would I move when I have done nothing wrong? How is it, that in America, we have laws that say a domesticated animals behavior can be based on its appearance?

Because the courts say we can. Even if you don't believe they are just, the laws are what the laws are.

Regardless, the constitutions clearly states that dogs are property and I have equal protection.....and I am not being given that.

I thought I had read the constitution. I don't remember the "dog" part. I have also missed the part of the constitution that says you can own something in direct violation of law.

You cannot own a nuclear weapon. You can only own a gun if you meet certain criterion (and you have a constitutional right to bear arms).

In the jurisdiction in which you live, that type of dog is deemed dangerous. You have the choice of fighting it or moving.

Pick one.... but just complaining accomplishes nothing.

[SChinFChin]

[Tuesday, March 07, 2006] http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/do...6-ohio-975.pdf

Last time I checked the 14th amendment said no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

Now, what if your city said your table was dangerous just because it looked that way....maybe old? What if they said you could face fines if you did not get rid of it?

Why are people comparing domesticated animals to wild animals and tables? I would hate to have one of you as a lawyer? Geeeeezzz

In the last place I lived, a neighbor tenant who moved in had what looked like a "pit bull" that pushes open the door to her patio, and walks freely over to mine, jumping over the small divider.

I mentioned this once or twice to them, and the replies I got was I'm a dog-hater, and a violator of her rights as a dog owner. So for the whole three years the tenant lived there, I never once dared to use my patio, which some years before that, I spent quite a bit of money improving and installing "glass sliding doors".

I know there are responsible dog owners and irresponsible ones. But unless a municpality can prove to me they have a sufficient "dog police" presence where they can instantly ponce on errant dogs, like they are right there when this dog jumps over the divider, then as a society, we have to go with the prohibition. I beleive my rights as a citizen to enjoy my own home had been violated for over three years so a dog owner can have "his rights".

[LawResearcherMissy]

How is it, that in America, we have laws that say a domesticated animals behavior can be based on its appearance?

To make ignoramuses feel better about being ignoramuses.

But seriously, dude? As the happy dog-mama of a pit-bull mix? GET OFF MY SIDE. You make pittie owners sound like whiny, entitled, spoilt brats. It's no wonder, with complainy owners like you, that people are so damned dubious when one tries to explain that the vast majority of pitties will do no more harm than possibly drool you to death.

No one forced you to get those dogs. You made a choice in adopting them, and that choice included adhering to the dumb laws pertaining to them. Instead of whining here, follow the current laws and work to change them by voting out the idiots that keep enacting them.

[Michael23]

Because the courts say we can. Even if you don't believe they are just, the laws are what the laws are.



I thought I had read the constitution. I don't remember the "dog" part. I have also missed the part of the constitution that says you can own something in direct violation of law.

You cannot own a nuclear weapon. You can only own a gun if you meet certain criterion (and you have a constitutional right to bear arms).

In the jurisdiction in which you live, that type of dog is deemed dangerous. You have the choice of fighting it or moving.

Pick one.... but just complaining accomplishes nothing.

The ohio constitution clearly states that DOGS are propery ad should be afforded the same rights as any other property, now, a nuclear weapon is not clearly stated as property in the Ohio constitution.

To make ignoramuses feel better about being ignoramuses.

But seriously, dude? As the happy dog-mama of a pit-bull mix? GET OFF MY SIDE. You make pittie owners sound like whiny, entitled, spoilt brats. It's no wonder, with complainy owners like you, that people are so damned dubious when one tries to explain that the vast majority of pitties will do no more harm than possibly drool you to death.

No one forced you to get those dogs. You made a choice in adopting them, and that choice included adhering to the dumb laws pertaining to them. Instead of whining here, follow the current laws and work to change them by voting out the idiots that keep enacting them.

Complaining? Damn right, it is PEOPLE like YOU who allow these unjust laws to stand. PEOPLE LIKE YOU are not the ones standing up and fighting for these dogs. Eventually they will be extinct simply because of false statments and unwilling owners who are to scared to make a fuss about the laws.

I have been to countless coucil meetings with FACTS and statistics from our city, but "council members" are obiously more informed about animal behaviro than actual dog trainers, vets, and behaviorists. So dont say I am what is wrong with these laws.

I went to a meeting, never mentioning the fact that I even owned a dog, and 5 days later I was being harrassed by animal control because a council member thought it was her job to tell him someone was "talking" about pit bulls. When I got my dogs, I was given instruction by the local animal shelter to read over THEIR ordinace, which has no restrictions on the number of pit bulls you can own. Then, 2 years later the CITY tells me I should have known to go to www.ci.newark.oh.us.......come on, what normal everyday joe, who has no politacl ties would no to go thier and look? I googled and googled Newark, ohio dangerous dog laws and only came up with the county code. It is not my fault that I had been told by the COUNTY animal shelter to read their ordinace.

[jk]

The ohio constitution clearly states that DOGS are propery ad should be afforded the same rights as any other property, now, a nuclear weapon is not clearly stated as property in the Ohio constitution

I just did a quick search using the Ohio state website and their search engine did not find "dog" anywhere in the Ohio state constitution.

Search Results

Your search for "dog" returned 0 possible files. For each record found, the results show the title and a brief summary of the file. All records are displayed in order of their search score.