News From Usa Re Bsl

[Aequus]

May 29, 2009

AKC AND DOG OWNERS WIN RULING GRANTING A TRIAL TO CHALLENGE

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DENVER BREED BAN

New York, NY- The American Kennel Club® is pleased to announce that

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has ruled in

favor of plaintiffs Sonya Dias, Hillary Engel, and Sheryl White in

their appeal challenging the constitutionality of the Denver breed ban. This ruling

reverses the United States District Court of Colorado's 2007 dismissal

of the suit.

The Denver ordinance bans ownership or possession of the Staffordshire

Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the American

Pit Bull Terrier and/or any dog with a majority of physical traits of

one or more of

these breeds within the City and County of Denver. Since 2005, as a

result of this ordinance, more than 1,000 dogs within the city limits

have been euthanized.

In July 2008, the AKC® joined Karen R. Breslin of the Progressive Law

Center, LLC of Lakewood, Colorado, and retained the Washington D.C.

office of Kaye Scholer LLP to represent dog-owning plaintiffs Dias,

Engel and White in their appeal in which they asserted that the Denver

ordinance banning pit bulls within the city limits is unconstitutional. The original lawsuit

stated the owners were forced to move out of Denver with their dogs

because of the ban which they asserted was a violation of, among other

things, their constitutional rights.

"The AKC has always opposed breed bans on the basis that there are no

bad dogs, just bad owners. We support reasonable, enforceable,

non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs," said

Margaret Poindexter, General Counsel for the AKC. "We also have

serious concerns about AKC breed standards being used by law

enforcement to identify dangerous dogs. Breed standards are intended to serve as the written

ideal of a dog which breeders can aspire to, not a benchmark for

defining dangerous dogs."

In fact, the Tenth Circuit Court's decision quotes the AKC breed

standard for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier: "with its affections for

its friends, and children in particular, its off-duty quietness and

trustworthy stability, [the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is] a foremost

all-purpose dog."

The AKC supports laws that: establish a fair process by which specific

dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable

actions; impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible owners; and

establish a well-defined method for dealing with dogs proven to be

dangerous. If necessary, dogs proven to be "dangerous" may need to be

humanely destroyed but the AKC strongly opposes any legislation that

determines a dog to be "dangerous" based on specific breeds or

phenotypic classes of dogs.

[GeckoTree]

I have noticed that it's usually all about the constitutional rights in the US, its too bad Australia has no bill of rights, I think if we did it would be a lot easier to challenge any bad laws that are made. Power of the people and all that. Oh to be a republic of Australia and not a brittish colony.

Edited June 2, 2009 by RebLT