Paul Wesselhoft, a state representative in Oklahoma, is trying to pass a bill that would allow cities the rights to ban specific breeds in the state of Oklahoma -- BSL is currently against state law in Oklahoma.
Wesselhoft isn't trying to ban pit bulls, just give individual cities the right to do so. While, on one hand I do think dog laws are a local issue, this is a case where I think the state has the right to say "no" to BSL. The thing about BSL is it's unconstitutional, and it doesn't work! Because so many U.S. cities seem incapable of reaching these rationale and factual conclusions -- the state has stepped in and protected the citizens of their states from their cities and the cities from burning hundreds of ours discussing inneffective policy (if you don't believe this, talk to the folks in Lee's Summit who have now gone through three committees, several city council hearings and 9 months of discussion and STILL don't have any new policies on the books). Meanwhile, a lot of really good laws have come from communities that have decided against BSL and found effective ways to deal with their animal issues.
Here's the article from the Norman Transcript -- I, of course, have a few comments in the full story below:
Wesselhoft pledges to continue fight against pit bulls.
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Oklahoma could see more attacks by vicious dogs this year, a Cleveland County lawmaker predicted this week; and if those attacks occur, it will be the state Legislature's fault. Sadly, attacks ARE going to happen in Oklahoma this year...regardless of what state Legislature decides.
At least that's what State Representative Paul Wesselhoft thinks.
A disheartened Wesselhoft said Monday he was "ashamed" that House lawmakers "didn't see the need" for a proposal which allowed cities to outlaw dangerous dogs, such as pit bulls. Right, they see a need to create good policy...and banning pit bulls is not it. There is plenty they can do to ban dangerous dogs, and in fact, what their state law pushes them toward.
And because of the Legislature's lack of action, Wesselhoft said "more tragic stories of dog attacks may occur as a result." Yip, with, or without his law.
Wesselhoft's proposal, House Bill 1082, would have returned the right to outlaw specific breeds of dogs to cities and towns. The measure also would give county governments authority to approve ordinances regarding dangerous dogs when they see a public health risk. And create unconstitutional laws when they deem the public's freedom is no longer important.
Earlier this month, the bill received a rare, "do not pass" motion in committee from state Rep. Sue Tibbs.
Tibbs, a Tulsa Republican, told The Transcript last week she thought the proposal was a "bad bill" and that pit bulls were no more dangerous than other dogs. Good decisions come from research, congrats Ms. Tibbs.
"Animals are like people," she said. "Some are just bad, some are not. But most are good-natured and take on the nature of their owner." A dog owner herself, Tibbs said her daughter has owned "more than one pit bull" and those dogs "were some of the sweetest dogs that I've been around." ooh, and she has experience with, and has actually met a pit bull and not just seen them on TV.
Tibbs' motion, however, didn't receive a second and last week, and HB 1082 found itself in legislative purgatory.
This week, Wesselhoft tried again.
House Bill 1082 was heard again Monday by the House County and Municipal Government Subcommittee and, for the second time, failed to receive support. This, after members failed to second a "do pass" motion made by Rep. Charlie Joyner; the lack of the second effectively neutralized the bill.
"I am ashamed and disheartened that my fellow House members do not see the need for this bill," Wesselhoft said after the meeting. Has it ever occurred to you that if no one else supports it it's a bad idea? "This measure would not have any influence on people's right regarding dog ownership -- it is just placing authority in the hands of cities and towns to decide what actions they deem necessary regarding dangerous dogs and their effect on public health and safety." Face is Mr. Wesselhoft, your bill ENCOURAGES bad policy, not exactly something people SHOULD be supporting.
Wesselhoft blamed pit bull breeders for keeping the bill locked up in committee. Um, they don't vote.
"They inundated the Capitol," he said. "With them (the pit bull breeders) there, we can't get the support. They have sent dozens of e-mails and messages to my colleagues. The other side isn't as well organized." We certainly do hate when the democratic process works against us don't we?
And many of those messages, he claimed, came from out-of-state.
"It's a very strong campaign," he said. "They shut down my bill. Rep (Sue) Tibbs led the opposition. I just hope that when we have reports of more injuries Very pleasant thing to HOPE for-- and believe me, you're going to be reporting about more injuries -- that those reports go to her. She needs to get the phone calls; I'm giving out her number to the victims when they call."
Wesselhoft, who calls himself the "Oklahoma clearing house for pit bull attacks" has been an advocate for banning the breed since 4-year-old Cody Yelton of Moore lost his arm after being attacked by a pit bull. Cody was visiting his grandfather, Phil Yelton, when the attack occurred.
"Cody was just playing in my back yard when my neighbor's four pit bulls attacked Cody through my fence, tearing off his arm and leaving him in critical condition," the elder Yelton said. "These dogs need to be taken out of the public -- it is fact the dogs will attack for no reason. Please supply actual support for your facts...because, they're not out there. This isn't even an opinion...it's just false. They're an accident waiting to happen."
Both Yelton and Wesselhoft compared the dogs to a loaded gun.
"By putting a loaded 357 magnum in your back yard, it is only a matter of time before it is used and people get hurt," Yelton said. "It may sit in the back yard for years before anything happens, but then at a moment's notice someone can be horribly injured or killed." Not ironic that is is also a constitutional right to own a 357 magnum. Which, in the right hands, is a great source for protection. In the right hands, a pit bull is a great source for companionship and fun. In the wrong hands, with people who are irresponsible, both can, indeed be deadly. Leaving a 357 magnum laying around loaded in your back yard would truly qualify as irresponsible...
Yet despite the difficulty, Wesselhoft isn't ready to bury his idea. If it's not bad enough just to be wrong, be adamently wrong I suppose.
The Moore Republican said he would request an opinion from Attorney General Drew Edmondson about the constitutionality of the current law which prohibits municipal government from regulating the animals, and added he would encourage -- and support -- a constitutional amendment to outlaw the breed.
"Right now I'm considering an initiative petition," he said. "I'd like to see it take off, and I'd like to see a non-profit organization lead the way. But if no one else will do it, I will." If the people don't want it, let's give it to them anyway!
Wesselhoft also asked municipal leaders "to go ahead and pass ordinances" to control pit bull ownership. Oh, good, tie up your courts with this. This isn't civil disobience, it's lunacy.
"This way, cities can bring a lawsuit against the state," he said. "I think state law is unconstitutional regarding dangerous dogs. Cities should decide what dogs they let reside in their area. I want to see this go to the state Supreme Court Um, check the most recent precedent in a state court, in Ohio, where the actually would uphold your state ruling -- a city needs to challenge the state. It is unconstitutional for the state to be able to restrict the cities from protecting its residents. There are LOTS of things they can do to protect residents -- in fact, this is what your law is ENCOURAGING. I will not give up this fight. Something needs to be done so there are no more Cody Yelton stories."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly, there will be more Cody Yelton stories. It may not be a pit bull next time, or it might, it doesn't matter. There will always be another story. Just like how in Kansas City we've banned murder and yet, nearly every day, there is an article (or 3) about another person being shot in this city. The best you can do is to make laws that protect reasonable people from other reasonable people...but you can't make laws that protect people from people who don't follow laws or that are statistically extreme events.
Mr. Wesselhoft, you're barking up the wrong tree here. Oklahoma voters, can you please get this guy out of office? Soon?
Recent Comments