My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Next up, Kansas City (Part 3) | Main | BSL/MSN - Discussion (Part 4 of 4) »

March 21, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451f90869e200e55163241f8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference BSL/MSN San Francisco (part 3.5 of 4):

Comments

S. Kennedy

Unfortunately, the ARs DO address the human behaviors, and use those situations against the dog breeds. Irresponsible or abusive people are always named on shows like animal planet--then this gives most people the reasoning for hating human behavior as such, and subsequently gives AR law the push to use such behavior as a BASIS for targeting the animals like certain dog breeds. Think about it--isn't that what Peta/HS/the rest always push? Bad people? Why? Because constitutional law AR attys know if they can target rationally, the human behavior, then they can rationally keep bad laws against dogs. I don't think people realize this. Much BSL law is focused on this, and apparently it works? Several exceptions- like Denver, where the rationale is that the dogs are "different" and allegedly more dangerous. Only the Tellings case avoided this, and we can see how the "Supreme" ct. of Ohio handled that. Sad but true. BSL law will not likely change by focusing only on human behavior.

The ID process of dogs is a very strong argument for mixed breeds/alleged purebreds in any criminal charge. This is largely ignored and yet is the strongest fact that can be used to defend criminal charges since the state has the burden of proof.
An example of the human behavior element can be seen in the current case of WA D.C. gun control case at Supreme Ct. DC says handguns need to be "eliminated" or banned bec too many 'bad people' use them for crime. DUH?? Now the Supremes have to weigh that against the constitutional provision regarding right to bear arms and what it really means. In BSL the difference is that dog regulation is considered much lower than gun regulation, despite dogs being property. But if the gun law case finds for gun owners, a corollary could be used for the dog cases. I am hopeful.

Border Wars - Christopher

Keep it up, this is a great series.

The comments to this entry are closed.