February 28th, 2010 by Editor
February 28th, 2010 by Editor
February 28th, 2010 by Editor
February 27th, 2010 by Editor
The following BBC article comes from our U.K. friends across the pond where “pit bulls” were banned under the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991. As any Briton can tell you, the Dangerous Dog Act has not worked since its inception and the following article is yet one more example of why: Because gangs, thugs, and drug dealers will continue to have these dogs no matter how much supposed preventive legislation you pass.
Huge rise in banned fighting dogs
By Claire Marshall
BBC Midlands correspondent
As police raids see the arrest of three people for animal cruelty, the number of banned dogs used for fighting, then abandoned, is soaring. Read the rest of this entry »
February 26th, 2010 by Editor
Like residents of Elgin, Illinois you may be wondering with whom Councilman John Prigge (and perhaps Mayor Ed Schock, Councilman Robert Gilliam, et al) has been associating after Wednesday’s Meeting of the Whole Committee meeting during which Mr. Prigge directly cited the radical animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) as reason to pass breed-specific legislation (BSL). What he didn’t tell Elgin citizens is that PETA also advocates the end of domestic pet ownership altogether and BSL is just one of the ways they go about doing that:
“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Newsday, Feb. 21, 1988.
“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles–from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic, Washington People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PETA), 1982, p. 15.
February 25th, 2010 by Editor
Editor’s update: I failed to mention, and so did council members apparently, that part of the registration requirement for so-called “vicious” and “dangerous” dogs (including “pit bulls”) is that there must be
“completion of an inspection by the city of the property where the Dangerous Dog or Vicious Dog is to be kept which confirms that the Dangerous Dog or Vicious Dog is or will be confined in compliance with [the ordinance]…and which identifies the number and locations of the signs for a Dangerous Dog or a Vicious Dog required to be posted by the Owner as set forth in [the ordinance]…as applicable.”
How else can you describe such a requirement but as duress? You either move, get rid of your dogs, or submit to an inspection of your home and property. The 4th amendment guarantees,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
While technically Elgin “pit bull” owners would be submitting to this inspection, they may have no other choice, which is why such a requirement constitutes duress and should be deemed unconstitutional. Plus, the wording is so vague it’s hard to determine if the inspection would also include the inside of the home wherein an inspector could nail you for any other violation of the law s/he sees.
It’s taken several days to be able to get through Elgin, Illinois’ breed-specific legislation (BSL) proposal because it’s just that muddled, vague, and confusing. But after having gone through its pages several times, what I can conclude is that it is one of the most unreasonable, unconstitutional, and egregious pieces of legislation I have ever read. Worse, those so forcefully pushing the ordinance don’t seem to even know what the ordinance contains.
February 24th, 2010 by Editor
Editor’s note: The following letter comes to us from an Elgin, Illinois man who is frustrated that the information he presented to the Elgin, Illinois City Council about the ineffectiveness of breed-specific legislation (BSL) has gone ignored. The only response he received from his so-called representatives was from Councilman Prigge who ignored completely the man’s citation of relevant and recent court cases in which breed-specific legislation had been ruled unconstitutional, or, as it was in a case in Denver in which it was demonstrated that not one of Denver’s Animal Control officers could identify an American Pit Bull Terrier as per their own ordinance. Also ignored was a recent ruling in a Toledo, Ohio Municipal Court wherein it was determined that parts of Toledo’s breed-specific ordinance could not be enforced under the semblance of home rule doctrine because those parts of the ordinance were unconstitutional, going above and beyond state law. Now, this Toledo ruling should be very telling for other states that think they can pass breed-specific legislation with impunity using home rule as an excuse. Not so surprisingly, Mr. Prigge completely ignored any legal precedent that showed that the breed-specific section of the proposed Elgin ordinance might be unconstitutional or above and beyond the purview of the feigned iron-cladness of home rule. Moreover, we’re told Mr. Prigge adopted a bring-it-on attitude, claiming the City was prepared for any legal challenges to the breed-specific portion of the ordinance, which lends credence to the theory that perhaps Elgin is asking to be sued in order to set a precedent in Illinois for BSL under the guise of home rule:
Mayor Edward Schock
Councilman Richard Dunne
Councilman Robert Gilliam
Councilman David Kaptain
Councilman John Prigge
Councilman F. John Steffen
Councilman Mike Warren
As an Elgin resident, I am greatly disappointed that all mine and other people’s evidence about the ineffectiveness of breed-specific legislation (BSL) has seemingly fallen on deaf ears. Meanwhile, your citizens came out in large numbers and many more opposed BSL than wanted it, to tell you they did not want BSL, and yet still a breed-specific provision was added to the proposed Animal Ordinance proposal? Read the rest of this entry »
February 23rd, 2010 by Editor
The following comes to us from our eyes and ears on the ground in Elgin, Illinois concerning yesterday’s Animal Control ordinance proposal:
It’s a little bit peculiar that not even a month after Elgin, Illinois Councilman John Prigge took his councilman spot in April 2009 that he was pushing breed-specific legislation (BSL) in an attempt to ban “pit bulls.” Yesterday, Prigge’s push came to fruition when the city of Elgin announced their new Animal Control ordinance [Clicking the preceding link will lead to the PDF file of the Meeting of the Whole Agenda which contains the ordinance proposal in its entirety beginning on page 64.] which labels “pit bulls” as “per se dangerous.” Dangerous per se means that “pit bulls” (which can refer to many different breeds) are supposedly intrinsically or inherently dangerous, yet where is the evidence? I’ll give you a hint. It doesn’t exist! Bite statistics which supposedly show “pit bulls” as responsible for almost a third of dog bites nationwide are intrinsically flawed because they do not parse out actual breeds from the slang term “pit bull,” which can describe any medium- or even large-breed dog! Still, as you’ll see from the ordinance, this very flawed bite data as well as a 20-year-old court case, a widely debunked “study” from Merritt Clifton, and other things like AKC and UKC breed standards to supposedly determine breed (which is a copyright infringement by the way), have been cited in the explanation preceding the ordinance proposal. It’s as if Elgin is begging to be sued! (I’ll get to that in a minute.)
What good fortune that Councilman Prigge was afforded an opportunity to beat his BSL drum so soon after his election thanks to a supposed attack in Elgin by two dogs that escaped their restraints. Notice I didn’t call the dogs “pit bulls” because again this term is slang and can refer to many different breeds of dog. What breed the dogs actually were varies depending on the account. Still, how lucky for Prigge who, while campaigning on a platform of Animal Control ordinance changes, did not see fit to tell those voting for him that he would crusade for a “pit bull” ban in Elgin, despite there being more opposition to a ban rather than support for it. Read the rest of this entry »