-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
California Dog Licensing
- Thread starter skibba
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Zigner
Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Advise about what? If your local municipality requires licensing, you license them.I live in California and animal control left a notice at my home with regards to licensing my dogs. I do not see the rationale for the licensing and do not want to pay the fees. Both my dogs' vacinations are to date and my bitch is spayed. Please advise.
tranquility
Senior Member
How do you feel about putting a license on your car?
People in haedes want ice waterI live in California and animal control left a notice at my home with regards to licensing my dogs. I do not see the rationale for the licensing and do not want to pay the fees. Both my dogs' vacinations are to date and my bitch is spayed. Please advise.
. License your pets.I drive my car on the road of CA, hence I can justify paying that.
What service does the county provide me for the licensing fees?
No one at the animal control office can provide me a reasonable answer as to why. The closest response I got was to check for rabies. Why not ask for proof of rabies? Why do I need to purchase a license and on top of that they want to charge me $40 for the animal control office to come out to my home. The fire department didn't ask me for any money after they put a fire out at my home. I can't seem to justify the fees and need a good reason why to.
They want money to come collect the dogs too.
Isn't this **** counter intuitive. License so we can get you back your dog in case it gets lost even though it has a microchip or we take your dog and euthanize it because there are too many dogs up for adoption at the pound. This country is fuxed up in so many ways.
OP how is this hard to understand.
Your town has a law that states that your dogs must be licensed. You have a few things you can do.
1. follow the law. (this is going be the easy and cheapest thing you can do).
2. tell the town no way and face fines and maybe being hauled in to court.
3. try talking to the town and see if there is something you can do that not going cost you anything.(very little chance of this)
4. get a lawyer and fight it. (this will cost a lot more then what the license fees would be)
The reason towns require people to do this falls under a few areas.
1st to return your dogs should they get lost.
2nd who to go after should your dogs get lose and bite someone.
3rd to make sure you don't have any dogs that the town has stated no one may own in the town.(and yes some towns don't let some dog breads to live in the towns).
Your town has a law that states that your dogs must be licensed. You have a few things you can do.
1. follow the law. (this is going be the easy and cheapest thing you can do).
2. tell the town no way and face fines and maybe being hauled in to court.
3. try talking to the town and see if there is something you can do that not going cost you anything.(very little chance of this)
4. get a lawyer and fight it. (this will cost a lot more then what the license fees would be)
The reason towns require people to do this falls under a few areas.
1st to return your dogs should they get lost.
2nd who to go after should your dogs get lose and bite someone.
3rd to make sure you don't have any dogs that the town has stated no one may own in the town.(and yes some towns don't let some dog breads to live in the towns).
Last edited:
This is a better response than I got from the animal control website or any officer. Still trying to wrap my hear around this but basically
- I pay for dumb fools that don't take care of their dogs
- I pay for the state/county when it is broke
....I understand now.
Found this on the interweb...brilliant!
Our politicians & civil servants always want to be right there with a sound bite that demonstrates they are all for ‘civil rights’, ‘equal protection under the law’ and zero tolerance for ‘discrimination’ yet here they are discriminating against a whole bunch of us and no one raises a fuss. Does New Hampshire’s Bill of Rights mean anything or are Constitutional guarantees of rights and liberties a thing of the past? Should a State be able to (legally) discriminate against one group of its citizens by taxing them for the same behavior (a Right) as another group of its citizens not subject to the tax? Southern states used to tax black citizens to vote in elections while giving whites citizens a pass on the tax. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional and illegal to do so. In the present instance to force dog owners to ask permission while other pet owners are not equally having their property rights affected is discriminatory and UNCONSTITUTIONAL! More importantly, when the highest court in this country tells us that “the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity" should I listen to them (the highest court in the land who’s decisions reflect the highest LAW in the land) or a lesser corporate government entity (a town) acting contrary to New Hampshire’s Bill of Rights and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States referenced above?
Some will just roll their eyes and say to pay the damn fee - it’s the law - they will cite you - they seize your dog. Well, if they try to fine you, cite you or seize your pet (property) without due process (a court fight) then they are attempting to utilize what’s called a “bill of attainder” which is described in the United States Code (under Cummings v. Missouri 1867) as "a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment." Bills of Attainder passed by Federal or State legislatures are unconstitutional (Bill of attainder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) according to our Constitution and if authorities (dog officers or town officials) attempt to violate Constitutional protections and Rights while falling back on the old excuse that they were “only doing their jobs” they may wish to consider the Supreme Court’s ruling (Owen v. Independence) that said "Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law." Furthermore, Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 13, Section 241 (Conspiracy against rights) states: “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;” Your town might consider how much of their legal budget they wish to use up in defense of a possible civil rights lawsuit or if their enforcement of a questionably Constitutional statute is worth being imprisoned for up to ten years for violating Title 18/Chapter 13, Section 241. At the very least they might wonder if $2,000. In annual dog tax revenue is worth pissing off even one Citizen when one looks at the down side.
Our politicians & civil servants always want to be right there with a sound bite that demonstrates they are all for ‘civil rights’, ‘equal protection under the law’ and zero tolerance for ‘discrimination’ yet here they are discriminating against a whole bunch of us and no one raises a fuss. Does New Hampshire’s Bill of Rights mean anything or are Constitutional guarantees of rights and liberties a thing of the past? Should a State be able to (legally) discriminate against one group of its citizens by taxing them for the same behavior (a Right) as another group of its citizens not subject to the tax? Southern states used to tax black citizens to vote in elections while giving whites citizens a pass on the tax. The Supreme Court found it unconstitutional and illegal to do so. In the present instance to force dog owners to ask permission while other pet owners are not equally having their property rights affected is discriminatory and UNCONSTITUTIONAL! More importantly, when the highest court in this country tells us that “the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity" should I listen to them (the highest court in the land who’s decisions reflect the highest LAW in the land) or a lesser corporate government entity (a town) acting contrary to New Hampshire’s Bill of Rights and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States referenced above?
Some will just roll their eyes and say to pay the damn fee - it’s the law - they will cite you - they seize your dog. Well, if they try to fine you, cite you or seize your pet (property) without due process (a court fight) then they are attempting to utilize what’s called a “bill of attainder” which is described in the United States Code (under Cummings v. Missouri 1867) as "a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment." Bills of Attainder passed by Federal or State legislatures are unconstitutional (Bill of attainder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) according to our Constitution and if authorities (dog officers or town officials) attempt to violate Constitutional protections and Rights while falling back on the old excuse that they were “only doing their jobs” they may wish to consider the Supreme Court’s ruling (Owen v. Independence) that said "Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law." Furthermore, Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 13, Section 241 (Conspiracy against rights) states: “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;” Your town might consider how much of their legal budget they wish to use up in defense of a possible civil rights lawsuit or if their enforcement of a questionably Constitutional statute is worth being imprisoned for up to ten years for violating Title 18/Chapter 13, Section 241. At the very least they might wonder if $2,000. In annual dog tax revenue is worth pissing off even one Citizen when one looks at the down side.
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">