Friday, 10 April 2015

Constitutional precedence for BSL

For additional accurate information on the public safety Danger of Pit Bull Type Dogs visit:

http://www.dogsbite.org/

http://www.daxtonsfriends.com/

http://www.animals24-7.org/category/dogs-cats/dogs/
*************************************************************************


Pit bull advocates statements that BSL violates constitutional property rights are entirely false, "In 1920, the Supreme Court of the United States found that it was unconstitutional to have breed-specific ordinances and that cite was Nicchia V. People of the state of New York 254 US 228 (1920)."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=254&invol=228

In reality, Nicchia V. New York (1920) is cited by appellate courts to UPHOLD well-written breed-specific laws. 

Part of the primary basis of the Nicchia v. New York decision relies upon the SCOTUS decision in Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton R. Co. - 166 U.S. 698 (1897), which determined that the “property in dogs is of an imperfect or qualified nature” and that government officials could shoot and kill loose dogs that pose a danger to the community. 

The combination of citing Nicchia and Sentell by appellate courts to UPHOLD well-written breed-specific ordinances was done as recently as 2007.

American Canine Foundation v. Sun, Dist. Court, ND California 2007

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14190727115308452132&q=%22as+set+forth+in+sentell%22&hl=en&as_sdt=ffffffffffffe06

“With respect to the first factor, the Supreme Court long ago held that "[e]ven if it were assumed that dogs are property in the fullest sense of the word, they would still be subject to the police power of the state, and might be destroyed or otherwise dealt with, as in the judgment of the legislature is necessary for the protection of its citizens.

" See Sentell v. New Orleans & C.R. Co.,166 U.S. 698, 703 (1897); see also Nicchia v. People of the State of New York, 254 U.S. 228, 230 (1920) ("Property in dogs is of an imperfect or qualified nature and they may be subjected to peculiar and drastic police regulations by the state without depriving their owners of any federal right."). 

Accordingly, the "private interest that will be affected by the official actions," see Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 224, is not substantial.”

But why stop at just one appellate ruling? Let's look at another.

Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court, 210 SW 3d 177 - Ky: Court of Appeals 2006

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4333648754246906755&q=Bess+v.+Bracken+County&hl=en&as_sdt=ffffffffffffe06

“With respect to the constitutionality of measures related to dogs, courts have universally recognized the right of state legislatures to exercise their police power to regulate dog ownership. 

See, e.g., Nicchia v. People of State of New York, 254 U.S. 228, 230, 41 S.Ct. 103, 104, 65 L.Ed. 235 (1920) (dogs "may be subjected to peculiar and drastic police regulations by the state without depriving their owners of any federal right"); 

Sentell v. New Orleans & C.R. Co., 166 U.S. 698, 704, 17 S.Ct. 693, 695, 41 L.Ed. 1169 (1897) (dogs are "subject to the police power of the state, and might be destroyed or otherwise dealt with, as in the judgment of the legislature is necessary for the protection of its citizens"). 
Kentucky decisions have been no exception.”

All advocates trying to understand the false "personal property rights" arguments brought by pit bull advocates, and the alleged "unconstitutional" arguments as well, would be wise to look at Sentell at least. 

Both Sentell and Nicchia are cited by appellate courts to UPHOLD breed-specific laws. DogsBite.org wrote about this briefly last year to Missouri Senators.

http://blog.dogsbite.org/2014/05/missouri-proposed-statewide-bill.html

"Private property issues have been re-litigated in breed-specific cases and each time have failed because this legal issue has been settled for over a hundred years when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Sentell v. New Orleans & Carrollton R. Co. - 166 U.S. 698 (1897) and determined that government officials could shoot and kill loose dogs that pose a danger to the community. 

See Google Scholar search results for: "Sentell" and "property" and "pit bull" - DogsBite.org