[Jannet.K]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but I've wondered about it, maybe somebody could explain it?

I really wonder how these bans are constitutional. I know I read somewhere that the Supreme Court ruled that there is no "inherent right" to own whatever you want (or whatever dog you'd like, which I don't get either), however, one of our constitutional rights is the "pursuit of happiness"- and if you aren't violating others rights (meaning me just OWNING a dog does not violate anybodies rights), you have the right to pursuit your constitutional rights.

Isn't outlawing certain breeds of dogs, especially if they have not been proven to be vicious, violating our right to happiness, among I'm sure other constitutional rights?

Can somebody elaborate on this for me, am I wrong? Am I confused about our rights?

[lapyignipinge]

I haven't a clue on that one.I wouldn't think they would be...but I am no expert.Perhaps Obed could pop on here and advise you-He's our resident expert on constitutional rights.He seems to have quite a knowledge in that area,far more than the average person.

[R1king]

I know in Ontario lawyer Clayton Ruby challenged to try and prove that Ontario's pit bull ban was unconstitutional, but the judge ruled that is wasn't.

I guess the judge figured that there are hundreds of dog breeds to choose from, and that if a person wanted a pit bull type that badly, they could suck it up and comply with the law.

I don't know all the specifics on that case, but you could probably dig up more info on google. The law is called Bill 132.

[paydayus]

I know there have been a few rulings of outright bans without a grandfather clause being unconstitutional becuase it violates the 14th Ammendment by depriving a person their property without due process.

[Jannet.K]

Bump.

[Affolfembonge]

Surely it could be argued by a competent lawyer that you are in fact robbing others of their happiness by bringing the devil incarnate into their neighbourhood. They would be constantly worried that their children would be eaten and their wives raped at night.

[2CNWXAqN]

havent you heard,we dont have "rights" anymore. they do what they please,when they please,and thats all there is to it.

[nd90t3sf]

Someone posted this article earlier and I can't for the life of me find that thread. I is a scientific study done on kids that get bitten and the dogs that bit them. Pit Bulls aren't mentioned. Thought it was nice to see that for once.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101109133233.htm

[Jannet.K]

Someone posted this article earlier and I can't for the life of me find that thread. I is a scientific study done on kids that get bitten and the dogs that bit them. Pit Bulls aren't mentioned. Thought it was nice to see that for once.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101109133233.htm

I saw and noticed that it was deleted suddenly. But I did manage to read it.

[paydayus]

Thats because the study was done in Denver where Pit Bulls are banned, so they aren't mentioned because they are dead or fled.

[Jannet.K]

Thats because the study was done in Denver where Pit Bulls are banned, so they aren't mentioned because they are dead or fled.

So, wouldn't this prove that their breed ban isn't working?

[nd90t3sf]

Really!!...gosh, seems that would prove something!!! All dogs bite in the right situation!!! UGGG!!

[paydayus]

So, wouldn't this prove that their breed ban isn't working?

Denver has had so many studies and articles showing their ban isn't working that its not funny. They have also been told by the federal courts that their ban violates the ADA, but they STILL refuse to admit they were wrong and have wasted taxpayer dollars in court cases, confiscated dog containment and care fees and killed about 3000 dogs that didn't deserve to die.

[pouslytut]

I just want to point out that we do not have a constitutional right to be happy. We have the constitutional right for the "pursuit of happiness".

I don't really know how to explain what I'm trying to say here, but there is a HUGE difference in what the constitution actually means with that statement, and what most people take it to mean.

---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 AM ----------

Actually, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" isn't in the constitution at all. It's in The Decleratiuon of Independance, so this has no bearing on our "rights" at all.

[CarmenSanches]

I think its unconstitutional because of right to property, its like saying you can move here but you must get rid of your car and get this one instead...even if you get a dog after the ban its still against right to own property because if the property is fine by grandfather clause it should be fine to own after the clause if you know what I mean. I can't exactly explain it all right now since I just got home from work so am tired, so would not make to much sense but it has to do with the property aspect of an animal. I also think mandatory spay/neuter for "pit bull type dogs" is unconstitutional for the same type of reason, that requires you to alter your property, I mean I could see a law for not altering X in your property but to make you alter it is unconstitutional because you are taking away part of your property so to speak. Just my two cents.

[pouslytut]

A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy

[Jannet.K]

I just want to point out that we do not have a constitutional right to be happy. We have the constitutional right for the "pursuit of happiness".

I don't really know how to explain what I'm trying to say here, but there is a HUGE difference in what the constitution actually means with that statement, and what most people take it to mean.

---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 AM ----------

Actually, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" isn't in the constitution at all. It's in The Decleratiuon of Independance, so this has no bearing on our "rights" at all.

This is true, but the 14th amendment does state: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So we've got the life and liberty part, but not happiness.

Even if we get rid of the "right to happiness"- I still can't see how banning certain dogs can be constitutional.

The argument that somebody made saying a lawyer could argue that owning these dogs makes the people in the neighbourhood in "constant" fear- well, the same could be argued when a convicted criminal is released and buys a home in a certain neighbourhood or whatever. You can't force a person to move out of a place because of their criminal past. I believe the only exception to this is that registered sex offenders cannot live within a certain mileage of schools or day cares or where ever "young" children may be. But if somebody has a terrible criminal past, whether it's abuse or attempted murder or robberies, all things that would make people be "in fear" doesn't give us the right to ban them from any neighbourhoods, correct?

[pouslytut]

I think its unconstitutional because of right to property, its like saying you can move here but you must get rid of your car and get this one instead...even if you get a dog after the ban its still against right to own property because if the property is fine by grandfather clause it should be fine to own after the clause if you know what I mean. I can't exactly explain it all right now since I just got home from work so am tired, so would not make to much sense but it has to do with the property aspect of an animal. I also think mandatory spay/neuter for "pit bull type dogs" is unconstitutional for the same type of reason, that requires you to alter your property, I mean I could see a law for not altering X in your property but to make you alter it is unconstitutional because you are taking away part of your property so to speak. Just my two cents.

You're right.

But. I'm not allowed to own a tiger either. Or a nuclear weapon. Nor can I own a cannibis plant. Point is, there are exceptions to all of our "rights". And more exceptions are being added everyday.

It's all a balance of what seems to make the most people happy...or basically, caving to the complaints of squeeky wheels.

There's no way for EVERY human in the country to be totally happy. One thing that makes one guy happy may really piss off his neighbor.

So the government can only do what it thinks will make the largest amount of people happy. If you make a law that pisses off 49% of the populous, but pleases the other 51%, you've done good. Because if you hadn't passed the law, 51% of your population would be pissed, and only 49% will be pleased.

If you read on the philosophies that went into the constructing of the phrases in these documents such as "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness" (and this applies to the "property" idea as they work together) you'll find that they were based on the idea of "happyness" being defined more as a measure of overall well being of the society as a whole.

They use happiness to describe an ideal of a person who is financially succesful, and active in helping his community, not someone getting their own kicks from whatever random hobby they happen to enjoy.

Society has evolved, our use of the english language has changed drastically, the way the world works as a whole has changed drastically. Thus for each new generation, the words set down hundreds of years ago will have a different meaning, and a different interpretation.

Kinda like breed standards. The wording has been the same since first written down. But the interpretation has changed drastically, resulting in pure breds that look and act nothing like the dogs who's written physical descriptions they were bred to resemble.

Now we have ideas and thoughts and laws surrounding these national documents that are based on ideals and interpretations that are entirely different from the original intent.

[paydayus]

Still, breed bans do deprive the individual of property without due process and there have been a couple cases where the courts have agreed.

However, the way to get around this is to add a grandfather clause to the ban because that does not deprove a person of their property since they can still keep the banned breed until its death and merely cannot get another.

I think our best hope against BSL is the ADA ruling.

[Jannet.K]

Still, breed bans do deprive the individual of property without due process and there have been a couple cases where the courts have agreed.

However, the way to get around this is to add a grandfather clause to the ban because that does not deprove a person of their property since they can still keep the banned breed until its death and merely cannot get another.

I think our best hope against BSL is the ADA ruling.

ADA ruling?