September 13th, 2010 by Editor
Editor’s note: Please politely inform the Douglasville Mayor and City Council that “pit bull” is not a breed and that breed-specific legislation (BSL) is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.
From the Times-Georgian:
The city council’s consideration of a proposal that would regulate ownership of pit bulls drew lively discussion during its Sept. 2 Public Safety Committee meeting and comment from the Georgia director of the Humane Society at its legislative work session that followed.
…Components of the proposal look at requiring pit bull owners to house only one dog per pen, but not necessarily one dog per owner, and the dogs would have to be registered and have a microchip implanted.
Pit bull owners would be able to keep the ones they have, but wouldn’t be allowed to have any more, according to the discussion, and a person could be fined as much as $500 if found to be in violation.
- 5 Comments »
Posted in Breed-Specific Legislation, Constitutional Rights
- Oelwein, Iowa May Consider Breed Restrictions for APBTs, Staffy Bulls, and Rottweilers
- Kinston, North Carolina Considers “Pit Bull” Ban/Restrictions
- Beauregard Parish, Louisiana Considers Regulations for “Vicious” Dog Breeds
- Mayflower, Arkansas Passes Breed-Specific Ordinance Restricting “Pit Bulls”
- Frostburg, MD Considers BSL