PLEASE FACEBOOK PURGE YOURSELF OF THE BAD ELEMENT USING YOU AS A PLATFORM TO LAUNCH HIGHLY CO-ORDINATED HATE CAMPAIGNS SPREADING FEAR AND LIES THROUGH MEDIA AND MEDIA BIAS..
Tuesday, 17 February 2015
Julie Wall I guess Rep. Sherry Appleton has never heard of a break-stick. It was sure fun educating her colleagues why it is recommended for all pit bull owners to have one on hand.
![February 11, 2015 - Rep. Appleton Testimony
House Judiciary Committee
Madam Chair: Thank you. Is this bill substantively different than the one we heard last year?
Legislative Services: This is the same substance of last year.
Madam Chair: Rep. Appleton, welcome. Thank you for your patience.
Rep. Appleton: Thank you for hearing this bill. You know how much I bugged you (Rep. Appleton laughs). And I apologize for that.
Madam chair, ranking members of the committee, I actually am nervous today. And I'm never nervous about bills, but this bill is a very personal bill to me. The best dog I ever had in my life was a pit bull. She took care of my grandkids. She herded them, made sure they were always safe. In the South, you find a lot of families who have pit bulls because they're gentle, they're loyal and they're great with kids.
But, the problem is, that under current law, any city, town or county can pass laws arbitrarily banning responsible Washingtonians from owning the breed or mixed breed of their choice. In addition to violating our fundamental individual property rights many of these local ordinances lack due process protections.
The trend has been for -- 19 states have passed similar laws to protect persons property rights by prohibiting breed discriminatory or specific ordinances. 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).
Since 2013, Nevada, Utah, South Dakota, Rhode Island and Connecticut enacted similar pieces of legislation. So all together there are 19 states who have banned this and I'd certainly like Washington to be the 20th.
The most important thing, and I think that we all have to know, is that there are great myths about pit bulls. And first of all, when they did recognition pictures to groups of people. Very few could pick out what a pit bull really is. There is only one breed that is a pit bull. But there are many breeds that look like pit bulls, and so people could not distinguish them. There are 72 million dogs in this country. And a lot of them are interbred with pit bulls because of their gentleness, because of their loyalty and because they are great with kids.
What's happened is that irresponsible people, bad people if you would, get these dogs and they train them to be vicious and aggressive. Inherently, a pit bull, German shepherd or rottweilers, they are aggressive dogs, genetically, but you don't need to train them to be aggressive. And dogs can't read your mind.
You know, they say that there are unprovoked attacks by dogs. The truth is that there is never an unprovoked attack. Something happened to trigger that dog, whether when it was growing up, somebody hurt it, or they tried to take away some food from the dog. Or, they made a sharp threat to them. Dogs can't read people's minds. But the thing that most people can't realize is that they have to take their dogs, especially dogs like pit bulls, rottweilers, German shepherds, Dobermans to obedience training. And that way they learn that they never growl at another dog -- they never growl at a child. They never growl at a human being unless they are protecting their family.
Um. The biggest myth that you all have heard in this committee is that pit bulls have locking jaws. Ah, pit bulls do not have locking jaws. This is one of the most widespread myths about pit bulls. When the skull of pit bull dogs are compared to other dogs, they show the same characteristics as any other dog from Chihuahuas to Great danes.
Um. It's amazing, I could go on for a long time and I don't want to do that. But I do want you to know that there are other dogs who are more frequent biters than pit bulls, Golden retrievers for one example, border collies for another, so its not just a specific dog.
It costs the City of Yakima $146,000 dollars a year to enforce their breed-specific legislation or ordinance. We need to recognize that we need to hold the owners culpable. If you have a dangerous dog who has exhibited dangerous dog traits, then you should have an ordinance about dangerous dogs. If you have a potentially dangerous dog, the owners should be the ones who are culpable. Because we are euthanizing dogs who never did anything wrong? Just because "somebody" calls them a pit bull, they are taken from their owners, they are part of their families, and they are euthanized in many places. And that is just reprehensible and sad.
I absolutely support dangerous dog laws, and what I also support is dogs going through what we call the AKC "Good Dog Canine Classes" and then they get a certificate that says, this is a good dog. So I ask you to please think about this. We are euthanizing so many dogs that are parts of families that are good dogs and we should really be going after the people who are irresponsible. Thank you.
Madam Chair: Thank you Rep. Appelton, are there any questions? Yes, Rep. Kirby.
Rep. Kirby: Rep. Appelton, I think it would have been a nice touch if you would have like brought your dog with you, did you think of that?
Rep. Appleton: I tried (laughing in chambers), but Madam chair told me it was a prop. And Lucy, I have to tell you, I live with Lucy, she does not belong to me; my grandson has two pit bulls. Ah. The best dog I ever had was a pit bull. And what I want to add is the American Veterinary Association, the American Kennel Club, the CDC, um, there are so many organizations that don't believe in breed-specific legislation, but do support any dangerous dog legislation.
So please, if we could be the 20th state, I would be so proud and so would Lucy by the way. Thank you.
--------------------------
NOTES to readers:
Appleton's statement is entirely false, "In the South, you find a lot of families who have pit bulls because they're gentle, they're loyal and they're great with kids."
In reality, the Southern United States is responsible for the majority of all fatal dog attacks in this country and Texas has led the nation in deadly dog attacks for over a decade. In the 10-year period of 2005 to 2014, dogs killed 326 Americans. 54% (176) of these attacks occurred in the Southern United States. Pit bulls alone inflicted 67% (118) of the fatal attacks in the Southern United States. -- DogsBite.org (http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/10-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf)
Appleton's statement is 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](https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/s720x720/10457451_701956359901588_1292466556844088995_o.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment