Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
  1. #1

    Toledo Breed Specific Law Unconstitutional!

    Constitutional Challenge in Toledo, Ohio

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    March 3rd, 2006:Update on the Toledo Challenge
    BSL Ruled Unconstitutional!!!

    Animal Farm is proud to have contributed to costs of this successful appeal of the Ohio breed specific law. Below are excerpts from the decision.

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    LUCAS COUNTY

    City of Toledo Court of Appeals No. L-04-1224
    Appellee Trial Court No. CRB-02-15267

    v.

    Paul Tellings DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
    Appellant Decided: March 3, 2006

    * * * * *

    David Toska, Toledo Prosecuting Attorney, and
    Daniel R. Pilrose, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

    Sol Zyndorf, for appellant.

    . . . This appeal comes to us from a judgment issued by the Toledo Municipal
    Court, which found state and local "vicious dog" laws to be constitutional. Because we
    conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law, we reverse.

    Appellant, Paul Tellings, who resided in the city of Toledo, Lucas County,
    Ohio, owned three pit bull type dogs. The dogs were family pets and had no history of
    aggressive or unlawful behavior. A health inspector, checking for lead paint, saw the
    dogs inside the Tellings residence and reported them to the Lucas County Dog Warden.
    Subsequently, one dog remained in the Tellings home, one was given away, and the third was confiscated and destroyed by the Dog Warden.

    Appellant was charged by appellee, the city of Toledo, with two violations
    of Toledo Municipal Code 505.14(a), limits on ownership to only one pit bull per
    household, and two violations of R.C. 955.22, failure to provide liability insurance.
    Appellant filed a motion challenging the constitutionality of R.C. 955.22,
    955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) which includes pit bulls in the definitions of "vicious dog," and the
    T.M.C. 505.14(a). The court conducted a five day hearing on appellant's motion . . During the hearing, many witnesses testified regarding the physical and behavioral characteristics of dogs, including pit bulls.

    . . .Extensive, competent and credible evidence was presented by these experts which
    showed many of the beliefs and "myths" about pit bulls to be simply untrue and
    unsupported by now accepted scientific, genetic, medical, or canine behavior principles.

    . . . Even presuming a legitimate concern that pit bulls are used in dog fighting or by other criminals, evidence was presented that the breed-specific laws have had virtually no effect in abating or preventing dog fighting or other crimes.

    . . .Breed-specific laws were enacted because, in the past, courts and legislatures considered it to be a "well-known fact" that pit bulls are "unpredictable," "vicious" creatures owned only by "drug dealers, dog fighters, gang members," or other undesirable members of society. . . Over time, however, "well-known facts" are often discarded in light of new technological, scientific, or social discoveries and the laws change in response to this new information.

    . . .The trial court noted that all the animal behaviorists from both parties testified that a pit bull, trained and properly socialized like other dogs, would not exhibit any more dangerous characteristics than any other breed of dog. After considering all the evidence before it, the trial court agreed, finding that pit bulls, as a breed, are not more dangerous than other breeds.

    . . .In our view, despite its own factual finding to the contrary, the trial court improperly relied on an outdated, irrelevant, and inadmissible source of factual information to revive the "vicious" pit bull sentiment and justify the finding that the statutes and ordinance are constitutional.

    . . .Since the trial court found that the pit bull, as a breed, is not inherently dangerous or vicious, then the interest in protecting the health and welfare of citizens is no more rationally related to pit bulls than it is to any other breed which has a potential to inflict injury on humans. What remains is a regulation and limitation on a specific breed for reasons unrelated to that breed, but rather related to human misconduct or negligence in ownership of the breed.

    Congratulations to Paul Tellings, American Canine Foundation, and Attorney Zyndorf on their hard fought victory. Animal Farm Foundation was proud to support this constitutional challenge. Read the entire decision below.


  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    near detroit michigan
    Posts
    299
    I own and american bull dog and had a boxer and a rot.
    I hate these kind of proposed laws and I am glad that theay are not being approved in my area but any that do make me sick!!!!!!!!!!!!. it is all
    because people dont train thier dogs properly. and no one understands
    that the bully breeds are verry protetcive of thier owners and home, most attacks are provoked by the persont being attacked being where theay dont belong. Then poeple that dont know dogs just get scared becuse a
    large powerful breed dog looks at them. Kills me most of these dogs wouldnt hurt a fly.

  3. #3
    I hope he sues the city for the one dog that was destroyed. I feel for anyone that tries to come to my house to take my dogs - they will quickly be introduced to my other hobby....my rifles.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    near detroit michigan
    Posts
    299
    LOL i hear that.

  5. #5
    Moderator two2curupt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,982
    +1
    41
    They just passed a law very simmilar to that one in Ontario Canada...

    It takes effect in 2008....Right now "pit bulls" have to be muzzled...And no breading of them is allowed as of jan31 2005...

  6. #6
    The irony is that the people who support these type of laws which discriminate will be the first to complain in any other type of discrimination.

    Considering most people cannot even tell what a "pit bull" is - how can they enforce it?

    Our neighbor across the street has had a dog for about 3 years now. A few months back after a snowfall she had the dog out. My fiancee got to talking to her about it and about one of our dogs who has been sick and Ms Snky brought up that she had a pit bull. "Oh no, it's not a pit bull, it's an American Bull Terrier" She then went on to explain to her that an American Staffordshire Terrier, American Bull Terrier, etc,etc are all considered "pit bulls". She was in total shock.

    Whenever we go to the park and there is some soccer mom with her brats I tell them they are American Staffordshire Terriers. After a few minutes of tail wagging and slobbering licks of their children I tell them they're pit bulls "But they're so friendly" is usually the reply I get....

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    near detroit michigan
    Posts
    299
    my neigbors wont let thier kids any wear near my new dog american bull,
    if i let him out the kids go in. its funny to me because my friends kids ride im in the yard. hear is a bad pic of tyson.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  8. #8
    My neighbors never went inside due to my pits, they did go inside once when I was cleaning my rifle...not sure why




    Looking to add this to the collection :

    Fabarm FP6


  9. #9
    Moderator two2curupt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,982
    +1
    41
    they should just ban fat chicks!!

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    441
    Whenever we go to the park and there is some soccer mom with her brats I tell them they are American Staffordshire Terriers. After a few minutes of tail wagging and slobbering licks of their children I tell them they're pit bulls "But they're so friendly" is usually the reply I get....
    Snkypete using the "dog" to pick up MILFS

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. ABBOTT lays down the CRAYOLA law!!!
    By WATER WOODY in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-22-2006, 09:06 PM
  2. We now have Seadoo/Yamaha specific Classifieds
    By Green Hulk in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-01-2006, 06:12 PM
  3. Law of Man
    By KirkF350 in forum Yamaha Open Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-22-2006, 04:00 PM
  4. Specific PFD Question
    By big83bronco in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (2-stroke)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-20-2006, 11:30 AM
  5. Mother-In-Law
    By elebouef in forum Yamaha Open Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-12-2006, 12:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •