Pit Bulls "Automatic Guns of Dog World"

This is where to talk about Pit Bulls!

Postby tybrax » May 16th, 2006, 9:23 pm

Pit bulls 'automatic guns of dog world'
May 16, 2006. 06:50 PM
GILLIAN LIVINGSTON
CANADIAN PRESS


Government lawyers defended Ontario's controversial ban on pit bulls from a constitutional challenge Tuesday by insisting the law is a vital tool in the province's efforts to protect the public from what they consider dangerous weapons.

Pit bulls have a "predilection to attack," Crown lawyer Michael Doi said as he described the broad-shouldered, snub-nosed animals as the dog preferred by criminals who want an extra level of security.

"In many ways, pit bulls are the automatic guns of the dog world," said Doi, as some spectators in the courtroom groaned in disagreement.

Doi described cases in which police were forced to shoot pit bulls dead because the dogs attacked officers trying to execute an arrest or search warrant at the home of a suspect.

"With the criminal element, the dog of choice is a pit bull."

The challenge is being argued by lawyer Clayton Ruby on behalf of Catherine Cochrane, who owns a two-year old pit bull mix. She is mounting the challenge with the support of animal-rights groups.

In court, the Crown described in graphic detail cases where children or adults were mauled by pit bulls in unprovoked attacks and suffered severe injuries that scarred them for life.

Superior Court Justice Thea Herman agreed that the attacks were vicious, but in cases where police had to shoot the dogs, their owners were the main problem, she noted.

She also acknowledged a point made in earlier arguments by Ruby that if pit bulls are banned, irresponsible owners and criminals would simply choose a different breed of dog.

"It raises the question: is the problem the dog or is the problem the owner?" she said.

Doi countered that the validity of the law is not in question — only whether it violates the Constitution.

"It's not the wisdom of the legislation that's at issue, it's the constitutionality of it," he said.

Just as there's no constitutional right to possess an automatic weapon, a banned weapon in Canada, "there is no constitutional right to own a pit bull."

The government has the right to take action against any threat to public safety, Doi noted.

Cochrane, who adopted Chess from the Toronto Humane Society as a puppy, said the ban has curtailed what she can do with her dog, who she says is friendly and not aggressive.

Documentation for the dog, whose bloodlines are unknown, classify it as a mastiff, a pit bull, or an American Staffordshire Terrier cross — one of the breeds covered by the ban.

As a result, Cochrane has to muzzle the dog and keep her on a leash at all times when out walking. Cochrane said she fears these limits will make her pet less friendly with other animals and people.

"I feel as though I'm being put in a position where I need to prove that I'm not guilty," Cochrane said. "To me, that's a reversal of how things work here."

On Monday, Ruby argued that the ban, put in place last August, is too broad because it encompasses several recognized breeds, along with any dog with "substantially similar" characteristics to those breeds.

The onus is on the owner to prove that the dog isn't a pit bull, he said.

If affected dogs aren't sterilized and muzzled and leashed while in public, the owner can face a fine of up to $10,000 or as much as six months in jail — or both.

Attaching a penalty of jail time to such a broad law is unconstitutional, said Ruby, who noted the law considers all pit bulls dangerous regardless of their actions and forces owners to take special measures as a result.

"I don't think it will prevent dog attacks," Cochrane said.

"Because it doesn't do anything to help people choose a dog that's right for them, or how to train a dog correctly, it just doesn't look at any roots of the problem."

Crown lawyer Zachary Green insisted the law is not vague or too broad, pointing to cases in Manitoba and Quebec where municipal pit bull bans similar to Ontario's have been upheld by appeal courts.

As long as the court is able to interpret the law, then it's not unconstitutionally vague, Green said.


tybrax :evil:
User avatar
tybrax
Just Whelped
 
Posts: 28
Location: Qld Australia

Postby cheekymunkee » May 16th, 2006, 9:46 pm

What a load of crap
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

Debby
User avatar
cheekymunkee
I Have Your Grass
 
Posts: 28540
Location: Dallas

Postby Asta » May 17th, 2006, 5:22 am

What she said!

Åsa
User avatar
Asta
Welcome Wagger
 
Posts: 3115
Location: Everywhere

Postby Jesseca » May 18th, 2006, 2:04 pm

cheekymunkee wrote:What a load of poop

Ditto
User avatar
Jesseca
Devoutly Bully
 
Posts: 958
Location: Washougal, WA

Postby a-bull » May 18th, 2006, 2:08 pm

It's just plain unconstitutional, period amen.
DISCLAIMER:

My posts are my own opinions unless otherwise stated. They are not necessarily correct for all dogs or all owners.
a-bull
I live here
 
Posts: 2926

Postby pitbullmamaliz » May 18th, 2006, 10:18 pm

:poop:
"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"

http://www.pitbullzen.com
http://inaradog.wordpress.com
User avatar
pitbullmamaliz
Working out in the buff causes chafing
 
Posts: 15437
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby PittieLove » May 21st, 2006, 12:46 am

Jesseca wrote:
cheekymunkee wrote:What a load of poop

Ditto


ditto, ditto

thoose stupid people, they know nothing :evil:
Bulldog Pride.
User avatar
PittieLove
Confident Young Bully
 
Posts: 478
Location: Orlando, Florida


Return to Pit Bull Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users