May 22nd, 2013 by Editor
Editor’s note: Again, what is a “pit bull” because “pit bulldog” is not a breed. The slang term “pit bull” can be used to describe countless actual breeds, their mixes, and lookalikes. In other words, “pit bull” is anything you want it to be which is why statistics on “pit bulls” and so-called “pit bull” attacks are notoriously inaccurate, skewed and therefore worthless, which the CDC itself has repeatedly acknowledged. In addition, constant containment for specific breeds is animal cruelty and more likely to bring about the very behavior the ordinance would be looking to curb. Commissioner Tommie Postell’s statement that Albany’s ordinance “should apply to all dangerous dogs, including poodles” is absolutely spot on. Please contact the Albany, Georgia City Commission here and politely inform them that breed-specific ordinances are ineffective, unenforceable, and unconstitutional.
From the Albany Herald:
Pit bull owners will have more restrictions placed on their animals under a proposed new city ordinance.
Albany City Commissioners plan to convene the city’s Citizens Advisory Committee to discuss a new dangerous dog ordinance that would come with more teeth.
Ward IV Commissioner Roger Marietta proposed adding an element to the city’s current ordinance that puts restrictions specifically on owners of the pit bulldog breed. Read the rest of this entry »
May 22nd, 2013 by Editor
As we wrote in January, gun grabbers and doggy killers were jubilant when they were able to unite the issues of “pit bull” bans and gun control when a Good Samaritan saved a boy, Jayeon Simon, from what were called “pit bulls” (though still no word on what breed the dogs actually were) by shooting one of the dogs with an unregistered 9 mm Ruger. Soon after, far-lefties went on a free-for-all saying that only stupid rednecks with guns own “pit bulls” and even making racist claims that “pit bulls” are only found in certain neighborhoods.
Well, we learned that last week, the Good Samaritan, Benjamin Srigley, while not being criminally charged for having an unregistered handgun (and other unregistered weapons in his possession which were also confiscated), will be fined $1,000. This is viewed by the Attorney General as a concession since, as the Attorney General’s spokesperson said, they “took it into account that [Srigley] saved this boy’s life.” Oh how nice of them. But I think the dog bite victim’s cousin said it best when he argued that, “I don’t think [Srigley] should be charged at all because it’s an act of heroism.” Agreed. But there’s always that little matter of politics. See, if D.C. authorities don’t at least fine Mr. Srigley, then they will be giving tacit approval for other D.C. gun owners to not register their guns. However, there must also be some acknowledgement that guns do save lives and that Mr. Srigley was in fact a hero, so therefore he won’t be criminally charged. And somewhere in there too is the acknowledgement that gun registration is ridiculous and only serves to adversely affect law-abiding citizens by harassing them for merely doing their civic duty. Read the rest of this entry »
May 21st, 2013 by Editor
How many times have we read about some prejudiced individual shooting and killing innocent “pit bulls” who were “guilty” of nothing more than approaching an ignorant person too abruptly, even though the dog’s tail was wagging and they were just being friendly. Or sometimes we read articles about people sniping “pit bulls” just because they think they can. Such individuals are in for a rude awakening when they are then charged with animal cruelty, and rightfully so.
But such was not the case Friday, May 17, 2013, when an off-duty Chicago police officer shot and killed a 4-month old “pit bull” puppy because he claimed the dog charged at his son. Accounts vary with eyewitnesses saying the puppy was not menacing the child, nor was that even possible since the child was nowhere near the dog at the time of the shooting. In fact, NBC 5 reported that, “neighbors said the boy was nearly a block away during the shooting. And they say [the dog] Maximus never even barked.” Read the rest of this entry »
May 21st, 2013 by Editor
As we wrote in February, Massachusetts’ S. 969 would overturn the prohibition of breed-specific legislation that Massachusetts passed just last year, thanks to the special-interest lobbying, and one must assume favor-trading, of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino with S. 969′s sponsor, State Senator Michael Rush. S. 969 is currently in the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government and a hearing on S. 969 will take place in that committee on June 4, 2013, at 11:00 AM in B-1.
Meanwhile, there sure have been a lot of “attacks” by dogs commonly and erroneously fingered as “pit bulls” — one in Roslindale, one in Brockton, and several in Bridgewater — all within less than 30 miles of Boston. Hmm, curious that. Just as there happened to be a “pit bull” attack right when the Maryland legislature was poised to overturn the Court of Appeals decision labeling “pit bulls” as supposedly “inherently dangerous,” be looking for more of these “coincidental” “pit bull” attacks as S. 969 advances.
May 17th, 2013 by Editor
With cities like Macomb, Illinois, and states like Michigan, currently considering so-called “dangerous” or “vicious” dog registries, we thought we’d weigh in. Yes, I hate to keep beating the same drum about the unconstitutionality of particularly animal-related legislation, but I’m going to: What do politicians not understand about the reverence with which they should treat the Constitution they swore an oath to uphold? We understand why the radical animal rights/environmentalists behind conspicuously bad legislation don’t revere the Constitution like they should — they appear to possess no loyalty for their country — but what about politicos? Elected officials, and I stress elected, swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and yet left and right, pardon the pun, Democrats and Republicans alike treat that precious document no better than toilet paper. How many times have we read or seen through their actions even presidents treating the Constitution flippantly? For instance, remember when George W. Bush referred to the Constitution as just a <blankety blank> piece of paper?
So, lately we’re seeing legislation on the state and local levels where elected officials are now adding what are being called “dangerous dog registries” to their dangerous dog laws. I’ve had a problem, and I’ve said so, with labeling dogs that attack other dogs or animals as “vicious” or “dangerous.” Read the rest of this entry »
May 17th, 2013 by Editor
Here’s a classic case of it’s-not-the-dog-it’s-the-owner. Since the owner claimed to need protection and had prior drug-related issues, it sounds like she may have trained her dog to be a drug dog (that is, a dog trained specifically to alert the owner and/or attack law-enforcement officers coming to raid a drug operation, etc.). So instead of proposing impotent breed-specific legislation for the millionth time in Illinois, why don’t legislators instead propose legislation to greatly increase the penalties for criminals who train their dogs (of ANY breed) to attack law-enforcement officers? Just a thought.
From WSIL-TV in downstate Illinois:
An animal control officer is grateful to a good samaritan who stepped in when the officer was mauled by a pit bull on the job.
“I give him full credit for saving my life that day,” said Williamson County Animal Control Officer Ed Barwick. Read the rest of this entry »
May 17th, 2013 by Editor
From the Huffington Post:
…As shelter dogs and cats were designated the official state pets Monday, Gov. John Hickenlooper also signed a measure requiring police to undergo training to prevent animals from being shot.
The measures passed the Colorado Legislature last month amid a combative lawmaking term, putting the state’s four-legged friends among the big winners of the recently completed session.
The training legislation, which all 100 lawmakers supported, appears to be the first of its kind. As the bill was being discussed the executive director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represents police chiefs and sheriffs, said he was not aware of any state or local government with such a requirement.
Dog lovers pushed for the law, saying several recent deadly pet shootings by authorities were unnecessary and showed that officers needed help in identifying threats.
The legislation requires sheriffs’ offices and police departments to offer three hours of online training on recognizing dog behaviors and employing nonlethal control methods…
May 16th, 2013 by Editor
Editor’s note: Flemingsburg’s existing breed-specific ordinance isn’t working so they’re going to consider an outright ban which also won’t work? Please write the Flemingsburg City Council by contacting the City Clerk, Joy Roark — joyroark@altiusbb.com — and politely tell them that “pit bull” isn’t a breed and that breed-specific legislation in any form is unconstitutional, ineffective, and unenforceable.
From the Ledger Independent:
City council members unanimously voted Monday to amend a current animal ordinance to ban ownership of the pit bull breed of dogs within city limits.
According to Mayor Marty Voiers, the ordinance previously allowed pit bulls to be within city limits, but required the animals to be registered and for owners to maintain insurance. Read the rest of this entry »
May 6th, 2013 by Editor
From the Gun Owners of America:
…Remember when Senators Pat Toomey, Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer formed an unholy alliance during the recent gun battle on Capitol Hill? Remember how their amendment would have encouraged your psychiatrist to turn you in to the FBI’s gun ban list?
And you remember how we stopped that provision, because over 40 senators found it to be odious and a violation of the Second Amendment?
Well, guess what? Barack Obama has just concluded that “he don’t need no stinkin’ Senate.” Read the rest of this entry »
