Orange County, California to Consider a Dangerous Dogs Map
The Orange County, California Board of Supervisors will vote on the creation of an online map designating locations of dangerous dogs within the county at its next board meeting December 17, 2013. The proposed online map,
. . . would show residents where the county’s estimated 150 vicious and potentially dangerous dogs reside.
The proposed website would allow residents to click and see where dogs have been cited in 17 cities including Anaheim, Fullerton and Huntington Beach . . .
So there it is. If passed, this ordinance will show just exactly where Orange County residents with dogs deemed vicious live so that other Orange County residents can seek vigilante “justice,” i.e. revenge, when a person or their pet has been attacked by a dog deemed vicious.
Yet Orange County Supervisor Todd Spitzer doesn’t see it that way:
“Anyone who has a vicious dog should probably have their head examined in the first place . . . Why would you even want a vicious dog? But assuming you do, the public has a right to know you have it.”
Does the public have a right to know? I’m not so sure, especially when vigilantism is on the rise.
And why, according to Supervisor Spitzer, would someone want a “vicious” dog? That may not be the proper question to ask. If a dog is deemed vicious or potentially dangerous in no more than an administrative hearing and not in a proper court of law via an impartial judge with the defendant allowed to make his/her case and with an attorney properly representing them which includes expert opinion that a dog may or may not be inherently vicious, then yes, I can clearly see why a dog owner would want to keep their “vicious” dog.
They want to keep their “vicious” dog because they don’t agree with the arbitrary administrative hearing decision that their dog is vicious, and rightly so because admin hearings are a stacked deck. They are meant to negate a dog owner’s constitutional rights in a setting where s/he may not even be able to hire a proper attorney.
Maybe the nanny-staters that have gone crazy lately in California with unconstitutional laws being passed left and right — like the unconstitutional mandatory spay/neuter laws in Riverside and Riverside County or the just-proposed mandatory microchipping ordinance in Santa Cruz County — should have their heads examined. Or better yet, perhaps these sell-out politicians who negate the very Constitution they swore an oath to uphold should be recalled. After all, California is no stranger to recalls.
Related Posts By Category
- Santa Cruz County, California to Propose Mandatory Microchipping Ordinance for Cats, Dogs
- Riverside County, California Breed-Specific MSN Sees Pit Bull Owners Dumping Dogs, As Predicted
- Riverside County, California Mandatory Spay/Neuter Law for “Pit Bulls” on Board Agenda For Sept. 24, 2013
- Riverside County, California Passes Impotent Breed-Specific Mandatory Spay/Neuter Law for “Pit Bulls”
- How Dangerous Dog Registries are Unconstitutional and Dangerous in and of Themselves