Vicous dog laws

[mike6623]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

I own 2 mix breed dogs that resemble Pit bulls. For one, pit bull is not a breed just a descrpition. There are over 20 breeds categorized as "pit bulls". I recently went to a coucil meeting to voice my opinion on the current dangerous dog ordinance in my city (Newark). The city code states if you have a "pit bull" (not a breed) you must have 100,000$ insurance, a 6 foot fence, muzzle the dog when you walk it, microchip it, and you can only have one per household. I have all but the last one. I have 2, and neither a pure bred anything. Although the authority to determine breed is given to the animal warden. All you need to be an animal control officer is a GED/equivalent.

I have never had a complaint, never broken a law in the city, nothing. Now, 2 weeks after voicing my opinion as a concerned citizen at a council meeting I am being harassed. They have been here twice in one day, neither time was I personally home. There is no reason for them to come other than they heard my speech against breed specific legislation. no one called, no one complained. My dogs are never outside other than to go tot the bathroom in my back yard which is surrounded by a 6 foot fence. They do not bark.

Now, I will wither have to
A. Move
B. Give one of my beloved pets away
C. Have my dog put to sleep.

This is all based on the appearance of the dog, not the behavior. My dogs are my property, do I not have a right to own property?

Is there any way around this, I will not separate my dogs because they are considered vicious just from looks.

Please help.

 

[ERAUPIKE]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

I own 2 mix breed dogs that resemble Pit bulls. For one, pit bull is not a breed just a descrpition. There are over 20 breeds categorized as "pit bulls". I recently went to a coucil meeting to voice my opinion on the current dangerous dog ordinance in my city (Newark). The city code states if you have a "pit bull" (not a breed) you must have 100,000$ insurance, a 6 foot fence, muzzle the dog when you walk it, microchip it, and you can only have one per household. I have all but the last one. I have 2, and neither a pure bred anything. Although the authority to determine breed is given to the animal warden. All you need to be an animal control officer is a GED/equivalent.

I have never had a complaint, never broken a law in the city, nothing. Now, 2 weeks after voicing my opinion as a concerned citizen at a council meeting I am being harassed. They have been here twice in one day, neither time was I personally home. There is no reason for them to come other than they heard my speech against breed specific legislation. no one called, no one complained. My dogs are never outside other than to go tot the bathroom in my back yard which is surrounded by a 6 foot fence. They do not bark.

Now, I will wither have to
A. Move
B. Give one of my beloved pets away
C. Have my dog put to sleep.

This is all based on the appearance of the dog, not the behavior. My dogs are my property, do I not have a right to own property?

Is there any way around this, I will not separate my dogs because they are considered vicious just from looks.

Please help.

American Pit Bull Terrier is a breed, get your facts straight.

 

[mike6623]

American Pit Bull Terrier is a breed, get your facts straight.[/QUOTE

Yes it is, but "Pit Bull" is not. Over 25 breeds are classifed as Pit Bull. Get your facts straight. There is no breed called simply "Pit Bull". It is a descriptive term. It is slang.

 

[Adalaide78]

You say you never broke the law, but you admit to owning two dogs at the same time that qualify you as breaking the law. If you knew about this law before you got a second dog you should have brought up your concerns before adding to your family. I suggest either house shopping or looking for a new family for one of your dogs before one or both are seized. I'm not familiar with the possibility of that in your city, but in some it could happen without an incident. Better to be proactive then reactive.

 

[CdwJava]

Is there any way around this, I will not separate my dogs because they are considered vicious just from looks.

About all you can do is either convince them to change the ordinance, or, you can hire an attorney and challenge the ordinance based upon its vagueness.

Or, you can choose from among your three original options.

- Carl

 

[mike6623]

You say you never broke the law, but you admit to owning two dogs at the same time that qualify you as breaking the law. If you knew about this law before you got a second dog you should have brought up your concerns before adding to your family. I suggest either house shopping or looking for a new family for one of your dogs before one or both are seized. I'm not familiar with the possibility of that in your city, but in some it could happen without an incident. Better to be proactive then reactive.

I Was unaware, I was refered to the county dog ordanince which does not have a restriction on the number of dogs one can own. Only after owning the dogs for over a year was I told that I was refered to the wrong one. It is not as if I knew, and did it anyways.

 

[Yertle8]

I feel for you, I could never give up my dog. But as long as the law remains unchallenged you are in violation of it and what they are doing is legal, although extremely petty when you've met all the other requirements.

 

[mike6623]

The fact of the matter is that the 14th amendment says no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY without due process of the law. Now, in Ohio, dogs are considered property. So how is it that my civil liberties are not being violated? It says it plain and simple. 14th amendment. I am not granted due process,a nd this is ok?

 

[cyjeff]

The fact of the matter is that the 14th amendment says no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY without due process of the law. Now, in Ohio, dogs are considered property. So how is it that my civil liberties are not being violated? It says it plain and simple. 14th amendment. I am not granted due process,a nd this is ok?

You really believe that your right to own a dog in direct violation of established county law is a constitutional issue?

Really?

First, I recommend you research "due process of the law".

You will then see that it has been served in this case.

Second, you are talking about civil liberties... this is not a civil rights issue.

Third, you can either fight the law or move. I recommend moving as the least expensive of the options.

 

[FlyingRon]

The fact of the matter is that the 14th amendment says no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY without due process of the law. Now, in Ohio, dogs are considered property. So how is it that my civil liberties are not being violated? It says it plain and simple. 14th amendment. I am not granted due process,a nd this is ok?

The government came and took all my marijuana plants and my machine guns.
My civil liberties have been violated!

Then my county passed a viscous dog law. My doberman was always a bit thick, so they took him too.

 

[Just Blue]

The government came and took all my marijuana plants and my machine guns.
My civil liberties have been violated!

Then my county passed a viscous dog law. My doberman was always a bit thick, so they took him too.

OMG!! The Government came and took my Meth Lab! Perhaps we could start a Class Action Suit???

 

[Mass_Shyster]

The fact of the matter is that the 14th amendment says no citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, or PROPERTY without due process of the law. Now, in Ohio, dogs are considered property. So how is it that my civil liberties are not being violated? It says it plain and simple. 14th amendment. I am not granted due process,a nd this is ok?

I don't see where you stated that your property has been seized. Did someone take your dog?

 

[mike6623]

I don't see where you stated that your property has been seized. Did someone take your dog?

They have the right to come and take one of my dogs (my property) just because of the way it looks, not because of the way it acts. I should be given an opportunity to prove that my dog is not dangerous. A vet, a bahaviorist, or an animal warden could all attest to that.

By the way, meth labs,and marijuana are not even comarable to dogs. That is illegal drugs and drug trade. It has no similarity to the behavor of dogs.

Why is it that 12 states have deemed this type of legislation unconstitutional? Because they are stupid?

If someone hit your car, and they were driving a toyota and when the police wrote the report they said it was a Honda you would be making sure that the correct make and model of the care was documented, no? What is the cop said, well...they both look the same and they are both asian cars so they basically the same. That is what they do with these dogs, if you have a dog that looks like a apbt, than you have an apbt, when in fact you may have a lab/boxer mix. And you could be fined for not having the proper insurance, fence etc.

 

[mike6623]

OMG!! The Government came and took my Meth Lab! Perhaps we could start a Class Action Suit???

yeah, its real funny until you are on the butt end of such ridiculous laws. If someone came to your house and said you can't have 2 labs because they are "inherently dangerous" you would be fighting for your rights to own whatever kind of dog you please until that dog does something that warrents a dangerous lable.

 

[mike6623]

You really believe that your right to own a dog in direct violation of established county law is a constitutional issue?

Really?

First, I recommend you research "due process of the law".

You will then see that it has been served in this case.

Second, you are talking about civil liberties... this is not a civil rights issue.

Third, you can either fight the law or move. I recommend moving as the least expensive of the options.

due process of the law is the right to be treated fairly and have a fighting chance when facing legal action. So...what am I wrong about?