Are mandatory pet microchips unconstitutional?

Question

What is your opinion? I have heard a lot of varying responses. Of course there are religious beliefs that this sort of thing is a sign of the coming apocolypse. Some may say it impedes on the 14th amendment. Depending on what your definition of the word "may" is, the Austin, TX city ordinance may or may not be improperly enforced. Of course, this is not hypothetical. My dog is basically being held hostage against my will by the local city funded shelter. Regardless of why this is wrong, or even if it is wrong; the option of whether or not to implant a microchip into a pet should be up to the pet owner, not the government.

Right?

Answer 1

Yes.

The fact of the matter is, our grandparents got along just fine without microchipping their pets. If they found them, they found them. If they didn't, they didn't. Life went on. The people who cared about their pets took every measure to keep them safe and in the event of a loose animal, took every measure to find their pet. The ones that didn't care, didn't - thing is, people don't change. The ones today that care will do everything in their power (maybe even voluntarily microchipping their pets). The ones that don't care, aren't suddenly going to start caring because of a microchip.

I have a valid reason for being against this mandatory microchipping of pets which does not involve religion or infringing of constitutional rights. It doesn't solve the problem (which is irresponsible owners; in fact this further enables them to be lazy about containing their pets) and IT COSTS TAXPAYERS MONEY.

I am flat out against frivolous "pork barrel" spending like this. I guarantee the lawmakers who instituted this ordinance are not funding it out of pocket.

You may not support microchip legislation such as this, but your government is demanding you help pay for it with your tax dollars. If a person wants to microchip their pet for security reasons, more power to them - but they should have to bear the costs, not the taxpayers (who may not even own a pet)!

Answer 2

I am not for microchips being implanted in anything, a dog, cat or a tree for that matter. And I will never take a microchip myself. But, most cities and towns do have rules and regulations regarding a dog and even cats. As a responsible pet owner, we need to be sure we take care of our animals, not let them run all over town, and maybe get hurt, hit or picked up by animal control. These animals are our responsibility, like our children. Since you never said why , as you said, why they are holding your pet hostage against your will. Maybe more explanation on that, would help with opinions. But, good luck and if necessary get a lawyer and have him file an injunction against them, to keep them from doing that microchip implant. Get new media involved, and fight,fight, fight. You may make case history in this case, and stop it, which will lead to all cases after that having a better change of making it the owners decision, not dog pounds or any one Else's. Again, good luck.

Answer 3

No.

Under US law, pets are property -- they are not people.

And there is nothing that says property cannot be tracked or regulated. The only prohibition is "Taking" property (under the 5th, and for states the 14th).

Now, an argument could be made that (as interpreted by some courts in other contexts) any permanent intrusion onto property counts as a taking, and must be compensated under the takings clause.

But even by that argument, the govt would only have to pay the reduced value of the pet with the chip, compared to the value of the pet without the chip, to meet the constitutional requirements of the takings clause.

Other than that, I don't any any religious implications, or any constitutional implications.

Answer 4

I kind of believe it is okay to have a city ordinance requiring micro chips. It causes pet owners to take more responsibility for their pets. But if it is required it should be offered by the pound for little or no cost.

Answer 5

We have more people not doing how and what they should be doing. Too many not being responsible.

Apocolypse? lol

Hardly.

If everyone would take care of their own responsibilites which includes their children and pets...we would all be A LOT better off.

Answer 6

Pets dont have constituional rights. Pets are properly regulated by the government because you do not have a constitutional right to a pet. Not everything is a constitutional showdown. And this is about as far away from one as you can get.

Oh, when your dog is lost and they bring him home because of that chip, tell me how you feel about it then.

Answer 7

From a strictly legal perspective...

I think the Constitution does not protect Rights of any creature except humans. A Dog is property (legally), like a car or a gun or a home, and can therefore (legally) be required to have identification numbers attached.

Answer 8

This is a difficult one...I feel microchips are great! My dog has one...and I worked in an animal shelter and have returned MANY MANY MANY dogs to their owners thanks to microchips. Every dog we adopted out got a microchip....I don't think it's right for the government to make it mandatory...becasue I wouldn't want them to say I have to microchip my daughter! And that would be next in line.

So no, gov. shouldn't make it mandatory...but I highly recommend HomeAgain microchips!

(Spaying and Neutering should be mandatory...but that's a whole other issue!)

Answer 9

I think the chip is a good idea, and those who love their pets will agree. But to make it Mandatory?? That's pushing it, in my opinion. Might as well force us to get them!

Answer 10

The constitution doesn't apply to animas. Hate to burst your bubble.