My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« The False Solace of Vilification | Main | Toledo ceases enforcing 'pit bull restrictions -- & a contract incenting killing »

January 28, 2010



my understanding of "home rule" is exactly the opposite of your description! At least in Colorado, the "home rule" provision in the State Constitution grants HR locations the right to make their own laws that might contradict state law. That's part of the basis for Denver's claim that they can have BSL despite the state law against BSL. They have defended their HR rights in a gun case as well (Denver forbids certain ownership that the state law allows.) And it's the message that their City Attorney, Kory Nelson, has been pitching to localities across the country: use home rule to ban pit bulls even if your state has a law against it. "It is the intention of this article to grant and confirm to the people of all municipalities coming within its provisions the full right of self government in both local and municipal matters and the enumeration herein of certain powers shall not be construed to deny such cities and towns, and to the people thereof, any right or power essential or proper to the full exercise of such right. The statutes of the state of Colorado, so far as applicable, shall continue to apply to such cities and towns, except insofar as superseded by the charters of such cities and towns or by ordinance passed pursuant to such charters." This so makes no sense.. because it basically invalidates state law whenever a jurisdiction decides it wants a differing law. The judge in the most recent ruling on Denver's BSL did not address the HR defense.



Again with my "I'm not a lawyer, but this is my point of view" speech, but it appears to me that the biggest differential here is that while the Colorado state law forbids CITIES from passing BSL, the law in Ohio gives rights to CITIZENS to own one a particular way.

If I'm wrong on that I appologize, but that appears, to me, to be the differentiator here.


Thanks Brent.. that's a really key difference. Fascinating that one state would grant ultimate rights to government, while another gives it to the people.


Well, now don't give them too much credit -- they weren't giving rights to people, they were trying to take them away -- they just happened to give them rights in the process.

A Facebook User

Brent I was interested about the darting of the small dog that die...there is a similar case in Stark County, OH where the deputy darted a "vicious" 7 month old puppy in the neck, hitting a main artery and the dog died almost 11 hours later, when the Warden finally decided to take the puppy to a vet. Do you know what the OHIO laws are on dart gun use on dogs? They are banned in Tennessee, even the Animal Control is not allowed to use them because it is considered not only dangerous but you have to be a certified vet to administer the drugs.

Any info would be greatly appreciated.

The comments to this entry are closed.