December 14th, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note: There have been a few articles about some of Van’s citizens wanting to pass a “pit bull” ban, but I have yet to see an article take note of the fact that Texas has a statewide prohibition of breed-specific legislation:

§ 822.047.  LOCAL REGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS.  A county or municipality may place additional requirements or restrictions on dangerous dogs if the requirements or restrictions:

(1)  are not specific to one breed or several breeds of dogs;  and
(2)  are more stringent than restrictions provided by this subchapter.

Added by Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 916, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991. (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.010.00.000822.00.htm#822.047.00)

Therefore, any breed-specific proposal in any municipality in Texas, whether they are a home rule city or not, would be illegal. (And I say whether they are home rule or not because home rule only applies to issues of public safety, and it has not been scientifically proven that the dogs called “pit bulls” — though “pit bull” is not a breed — are a public safety threat.)

From radio station KMOO 99.9 in Mineola, Texas:

At the Van City Council meeting Wednesday night December 8th, several citizens voiced their desire for a ban on pit bulls. Parties from both sides of the debate presented their opinions.

Sharon Kanopka of Fort Worth, and several others along with their pit bulls made the trip to Van to express their condolences on recent attacks in the area and to stress the importance of education as an alternative to a ban. According to the group part of educating means making it known that the breed is not responsible. While opinions were strong at the meeting, the over all demeanor remained calm. No immediate action was taken toward the ban at the meeting but it was decided to form a four person committee to conduct research over the next few months on the issue. The committee will come back to the Van City Council to present their findings in March.

December 14th, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note: So really, Denver is going to defy the Americans with Disabilities Act to supposedly uphold their unconstitutional “pit bull” ban? (Please see article excerpted below.)  I say unconstitutional, because if you look up the 2004 case of Margolius v. The City of Denver you will see that Mr. Margolius proved that Denver’s own Animal Control officers could not discern what was and was not a so-called “pit bull” as defined by their own ordinance.  As such, Mr. Margolius’ 14th amendment due process rights were determined to have been violated.  But as you see from the article below, Denver is now attempting to deny the disabled their service dogs if they happen to be called “pit bulls,” whatever that is, and I doubt even Denver would know!

Denver keeps repeating the same miserable lie over and over that this “breed” is dangerous.  Well, “pit bull” is not a breed but a conglomeration of breeds, and so what Denver has really done is embarked on a crusade against dogs, not a specific breed, since so many medium- or large-breed dogs and their mixes can be called “pit bull.”  (And as this article shows, even Chihuahuas have been mistaken for “pit bulls”!)  And Denver can keep trying to hide behind their supposed home rule authority, but they have yet to scientifically prove that what they call “pit bulls” are an inherent threat such that their supposed home rule exemption is legitimate.

This latest display of defiance makes Denver look like their council is populated with a bunch of sadists, so by all means Denver, keep it up.  It’s good for the world to finally see how petty and even unsympathetic Denver’s breed ban is, I mean, if the world hadn’t already seen it in all the innocent dogs that Denver has destroyed via their “pit bull” witch hunt.

From NBC channel 9 in Colorado:

The federal authorities were clear when they told Denver it cannot deny residents from owning pit bulls as service dogs. Denver’s defiant response is drawing a legal challenge.

Denver city leaders decided to uphold their pit bull ban on Monday night, despite the Department of Justice’s request.  Read the rest of this entry »

December 8th, 2010 by Editor

Editor’s note:  It is of great concern any time a political representative says something like what Bristol Borough Council President Ralph DiGuiseppe told the Bucks County Courier Times:

“I don’t care what the state says; my job is to protect the people and other animals. I will push for [breed-specific legislation]….”

In other words, Mr. DiGuiseppe does not seemingly care that Pennsylvania state law prohibits breed-specific legislation:

AGRICULTURE (Title 3) – THE DOG LAW – ARTICLE V-A. DANGEROUS DOGS

§459-507-A. Construction of article. (c)Local ordinances. – Those provisions of local ordinances relating to dangerous dogs are hereby abrogated. A local ordinance otherwise dealing with dogs may not prohibit or otherwise limit a specific breed of dog.

And yet I’m guessing Mr. DiGuiseppe swore an oath when he took office to uphold the laws of the state of Pennsylvania and of the Constitution of the United States, both of which would be violated by a breed-specific muzzling law for “pit bulls.” (And “pit bull” is not a breed by the way.)  If he doesn’t care about state law or the Constitution does he care that breed-specific legislation (BSL) is widely acknowledged to be ineffective legislation?  Not only will BSL not keep his community safer, but it is a huge waste of Animal Control enforcement dollars that could be going to police all irresponsible dog owners.

Please contact the Bristol Borough Council here and politely inform them that breed-specific legislation is prohibited in the state of Pennsylvania, and that breed-specific legislation is ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.

From PhillyBurbs.com:

Although it may not become the law until early next year, Bristol Borough Council President Ralph DiGuiseppe reiterated Monday that he wants a muzzle ordinance for all pit bulls and pit bull mix breeds.  Read the rest of this entry »