I Know some one in Florida who had to move too keep her pitbull show dogs because the county decided that they wouldn't let anyone have pitbulls. I can understand if your dog has had problems that they may have a no tolerance policy but to outlaw all pitbulls?? Isn't that kinda like saying all white people cant play basketball??
2006-12-20 03:51:35 · 15 answers · asked by what? 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The constitution does not protect your right to own thing that are considered dangerous to the community. I agree with the actions of the county in Florida. However, there should be exceptions to this rule for dogs that are used for showing and such. The county should have made the ordiance worded against dogs being outside of the home and unrestrained. Another idea would to be to have dog owners post a sign in the front of their home stating that they have a dog inside/outside.
2006-12-20 04:02:43 · answer #1 · answered by ncpropes 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Pit bulls SHOULD be illegal. Or, at least they should require strict licensing to own them. The breed was developed solely for fighting and with the increased inbreeding/poor breeding going on today, the breed is in the worst temperment ever.
Rottweilers are coming close to falling into this group and that is a shame because Rottweilers are a legitimate, respectable breed, being ruined by these unscrupulous breeders. There needs to be a law- just in my local area it is not uncommon at all to hear of dogs mauling and killing people. In so many cases the owners of these animals has them solely for reasons of intimidation. This is not right
2006-12-20 12:02:30 · answer #2 · answered by Lane 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
There is no federal constitutional right to own a particular breed dog. That matter would be left to the states to regulate. Unless you can come up with argument that such legislation violates the constitution of your state, you are pretty much out of luck.
2006-12-20 13:15:52 · answer #3 · answered by Carl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree, I can understand a zero tolerance policy with certain breeds. Or making it so you have to prove that your dog can't escape your yard with certain breeds. But to outlaw it altogether is a little harsh. It sounds like there might have been major problems with pitbulls or something.
2006-12-20 11:57:51 · answer #4 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, not everything is covered in the constitution. Many (actually most) rights were left up to the states to decide. I can't think of any reason that the founding fathers wanted to make pet ownership a federal issue.
2006-12-20 12:00:32 · answer #5 · answered by The Teacher 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No constitutional issue here.
I've met many really nice pits, but it's usually the kind of person that owns it that's the problem.
If you apply for homeowners insurance, they always ask if you own a pit or rotty. And insurance companies go by the numbers, not opinions.
2006-12-20 12:08:57 · answer #6 · answered by bettysdad 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would LOVE to know where it says this in the constitution.
I think put bulls SHOULD be outlawed. Once a pit bull has a "problem", it is usually too late, because someone has been seriously injured or killed.
People claim that "their pit bull is nice, and would not hurt anybody". Well, there was a family that had a pet pit bull, and it ATE their kid's HAND during the night. Not chewed it, ATE it. How would you like this to happen to your kid???
2006-12-20 11:57:40 · answer #7 · answered by i hate hippies but love my Jesus 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋
It may be a dumb law, but there's no constitutional right to own a dog.
Not everything that's a bad idea is unconstitutional.
2006-12-20 12:14:25 · answer #8 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think its unconstitutional. The government can enact laws to protect its citizens. Like you aren't allowed to keep lions, or tigers or bears. Or chickens and goats in residential non-farm areas.
2006-12-20 12:01:50 · answer #9 · answered by Firespider 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
More of a states' rights issue rather than a constitutional one..
2006-12-20 12:27:43 · answer #10 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋