Note No. 2 – it IS constitutional for cities to enact breed-specific legislation, as I note in my accompanying column:
A federal court ruling in Denver this spring, and an Ohio state court ruling last fall, confirm that.
In Denver, March 20, U.S. District Judge Walker D. Miller ruled that particular city's breed-specific ban was constitutional.
Aug. 2, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the city of Toledo's breed-specific ordinances are constitutional. The ordinances classify dogs that belong to a breed commonly known as pit bulls, or dogs that are pit bull mixes, as vicious.
So, let’s move beyond that red herring that breed-specific activists throw up.
Here’s some comments from the Cedar Hill City Council meeting:
“I think everyone would pretty much agree a shih tzu is not an aggressive dog, but I also own an Akita, which is considered aggressive,” Mayor Rob Franke said. “We do consider it a limitation to not be able to control certain breeds, but nobody on the council has talked about banning.”
Franke added a few other comments at the end of discussion. He said the city had plenty of “back-end” regulations, but not much in the way of “front-end” control.
He likened some dogs and their owners to being like people “carrying a gun on their hip.”
Councilman Cliff Shaw addressed what he saw as hyperbole.
“I think that's a bit of a stretch to claim that breed-specific legislation (has anything to do) with supporting our troops in Iraq,” Shaw said. (One person in citizens’ comments mad that claim after referencing the Fourteenth Amendment.)
The key to this is, if you would like for your city to have breed-specific dog policing powers, you need to contact your state representative and state senator.
