Dogs of these breeds that are legally kept must also be microchipped. [71] Wheeler testified that she had never been charged under the pit bull law, which left her with no legal recourse. She eventually agreed to send the dogs to a nursing home in Quebec. Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is a type of law that prohibits or restricts certain breeds or types of dogs. [1] These laws range from outright prohibitions on the ownership of these dogs to restrictions and conditions of ownership, and often establish a legal presumption that these dogs are dangerous or vicious. Some jurisdictions have passed breed-specific laws in response to a number of deaths or injuries involving pit bull dogs or other dog breeds commonly used in dog fighting, and some government organizations such as the United States Army[2][3] and the Marine Corps[4] have also taken administrative action. Due to opposition to such laws, anti-BSL laws have been passed in 21 of the 50 state governments in the United States, prohibiting or restricting the ability of those state jurisdictions to enact or enforce racial laws. [5] In the UK, the main breed-specific law is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which makes it illegal to own “specially controlled dogs” without a specific court exception. Dogs must wear a muzzle and be kept on a leash in public, they must be registered and insured, sterilized, tattooed and equipped with microchip implants. Dana M. Campbell summarized the July 2009 General Court court challenges and decisions: Even though Presa Canario Mastiff is a man, it would be great if I could keep her! In American Canine Federation and Florence Vianzon v.
City of Aurora, Colorado, 618 F.Supp.2d 1271 (2009), the plaintiffs filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado to prevent Aurora, Colorado, from enforcing a ban on pit bulls, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally vague, that the law was an abuse of the city`s police power, and that the ban constituted an unconstitutional expropriation of property. The court dismissed each of these lawsuits based on existing precedents and upheld the city`s order. [109] It is true that under the Fourteenth Amendment, no state may deprive a person of his or her life, liberty, or property without due process, but in determining what constitutes due process, we are obligated to consider the nature of the property, the necessity of its sacrifice, and the extent to which it has hitherto been considered part of the power of the police. to be taken into account. To the extent that the property is harmless or harmless, it may be condemned or destroyed only by judicial proceedings with timely notification to the owner; However, where it is dangerous to the safety or health of the Community, due process may authorise its summary destruction. Although dogs are generally harmless, they retain some of their hereditary wolf instincts, which sometimes erupt in the destruction of sheep and other defenseless animals. Others, too small to attack these animals, are simply vicious, noisy and pestilent. Since their looting is often committed at night, it is usually impossible to identify the dog or place the responsibility on the owner, who is also likely to be financially irresponsible [not responsible for financial compensation]. In short, damages are usually those that are beyond the reach of legal proceedings, and legislation of a drastic nature is needed to protect people and property from destruction and harassment.
Such legislation clearly falls within the police power of the State. It usually comes in the form of a license fee and identification of the dog through a collar and tag that sometimes requires the owner`s name to be engraved, but other remedies are not uncommon. [106] Approximately 550 jurisdictions in the United States have passed breed-specific laws to address a number of high-profile incidents involving pit bull-like dogs and some government agencies such as the United States.