Oklahoma State Supreme Court overturns Midwest City, Oklahoma’s “Pit Bull” ban
Editor’s note: See? Municipalities who pass these breed-specific ordinances have no idea how to enforce them because “pit bull” is not a breed and so “pit bulls” become whatever arbitrary designation the ordinance wants them to be. Used to be they defined “pit bulls” as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Now it looks like they think Bull Terriers are “pit bulls” too. The truth is, “pit bull” is a catch-all that can literally be as many breeds as the ordinance defines it to be. That’s why BSL for “pit bulls” in particular has been such a goldmine for those wanting to eradicate dog ownership, and why it is so blatantly unconstitutional. Indeed, when even Chihuahuas are mistaken for “pit bulls” what can’t be called a “pit bull”?
From KFOR channel 4 in Oklahoma City:
A Midwest City family wins a long overdue court battle against the city. The family had been fighting for years to save their bull terrier pets. This week a state supreme court ruling ends the long legal battle.
Lower courts had previously ruled the dog ban violated state law.
This week the state supreme court refused to take up the issue, which means the Midwest City ban is now officially dead.
The dog owner at the heart of the lawsuit is obviously thrilled by the decision.
“It’s a huge relief,” said dog owner Jerry Stuckey.
The dispute centered on a now defunct Midwest City ordinance that banned dogs with “pit” or “bull” in their names as a danger to the community.
That included the Stuckey’s bull terrier dogs.
“It was just a bad ordinance. It was unconstitutional,” said Stuckey.
After filing suit in 2007, Scott Adams always argued and lower court judges agreed, Oklahoma state law prohibits dog bans from being breed specific.
“It was a waste of money and time. I tried to tell everyone that from day one but the city wanted to pursue it. We defended it and won,” said the Stuckey’s attorney Scott Adams.
“What it has taken away is the presumption that all pit bulls are dangerous animals,” said Midwest City attorney Katherine Bolles.
…”I’m tickled to death the Supreme Court has the common sense they have,” said Stuckey…
Related Posts By Category
- Del City, Oklahoma Abandons “Pit Bull” Ban
- Oklahoma’s SB 362 Would Allow Breed-Specific Legislation in the State of Oklahoma
- Winnipeg “Pit Bull” Owner to Fight City’s “Pit Bull” Ban in Court; Winnipeg Bite Stats Increase Despite BSL
- Lakeland, Florida Hearing Officer Overturns Dangerous Dog Ruling for “Pit Bull”
- Lawsuit Filed in Federal Court against Richland, Mississippi “Pit Bull” Ban