November 9th, 2004, 09:54 AM
Another great story about the pit bull ban. Seems Mr. Bryant has bitten off more then he can chew.... :rolleyes:
November 9th, 2004, 09:57 AM
Yahoo!!! Clay is on it!!
November 9th, 2004, 11:28 AM
It sounds to me (and please, if I'm wrong, let me know) that he is fighting it because it isn't targetting specifically pitbulls.
From the article...
"Their major complaint? The bill as written includes any large or aggressive dog thatís not even related to a pit bull."
Does anyone have any further insight? I don't want to sound like a pessimist, I just think this could go either way in helping us. If it destroys the legislation, great. If it causes further clarification to focus specifically on "pit bull" breeds, not so much.
November 9th, 2004, 11:32 AM
I think its the search and seizure stuff he is also interested in which would benefit all.
November 9th, 2004, 11:34 AM
I see your point Schwinn, but this section; And it gives law enforcement officials special powers to enter your home and remove or destroy a menacing canine they perceive as dangerous. makes me think that they will require a more comple description of a "pit bull" which they cannot provide... since mixes are included in this legislation and no reputable vet would (hopefully)stand up and put their job on the line to say "Yes, that is a put bull, no doubt" They will have a very difficult time with this enforcement.
Plus, that statement also allows for neighbour against neighour complaints escalating into legal battles and more innocent animals being out down because people speculate that they are "menacing"...
November 9th, 2004, 11:40 AM
It sounds to me like they want the whole thing redone. I am not getting that they want it to be more about pits I think it is more about getting the facts and using them to implement laws that would be more enforceable and legal. If your neighbour hates you they can't complain and have your dog taken away they would have to prove the allegations. It seems they think this is a really bad point as we all do and could be about being vindictive and a dog will pay the price because you live next to a arse. I think by making them rethink the law they will have to consult the experts since the village idiot already admitted he knows nothing and is not an expert, that is the people who need to be consulted. That is my take on it
November 9th, 2004, 11:46 AM
No hes fighting the whole thing. The easiest things he can get rid of would be the clause pretaining to the search and seizure of pets. But the organizations that hired him hired him for the Pit bull ban originally but all these clauses are a very important part of this legislation. I am almost certain hes here to fight the whole ban incluing the fact that you can't identify a pit bull. That alone is very unconstitutional. Putting the onus on the owner is wrong and easly fought. We know we have a good case on our hands, we know the truths. All we have to do is allow this guy to show the court all the info on these dogs and like other US states they will not be allowed to allow Bill 132. I can feel it! Don't get discouraged.
November 9th, 2004, 11:58 AM
I think you're both right, his focus is the search and seizure stuff, and the menacing dog parts. I just found it troublesome that he took issue (in my interpretation), that it wasn't just pit-bulls. I'm probably reading too much into it. Bottom-line is, anyone willing to fight any part of this is an ally.
November 9th, 2004, 12:05 PM
Good point is that Clayton Ruby is the person I would want to represent me if I was going to fight constitutional issues. He will not back down from the issues and will fight tooth and nail for his client. He is also great for getting in the media with his cases.
November 9th, 2004, 12:06 PM
* sigh * wouldn't it be nice if the whole thing was thrown out AND (like in the States, can't remember where, I think it was Denver) that the court ruled no bylaws pretaining to BSL would be entertained within the state.