O.T. Proposed Ordinance To Keep Felons From Owning Dogs

[Becca]

Proposed Ordinance To Keep Felons From Owning Dogs

(WCCO)

A proposed ordinance in Minneapolis would try to keep felons from owning
dangerous dogs.

Under the ordinance, a convicted felon would need to have a permit to own a
dog weighing more than 20 pounds. They would also need a permit if animal
control says the dog is dangerous to the public.

The Minneapolis city council votes on the ordinance next week.

A large part of the problem with this is, though, that gun laws don't keep guns out of the hands of felonsand alot of the time, the dogs are just another weapon to drug dealers. Of course, guns only bark when you pull the trigger, but the person hearing the barking has to A) know the owner is a felon and B) be willing to turn the person in...

Then there's the whole revenge side of things... pizz off your neibor and they "anonimiously" tip the cops off...

I dunno, your thoughts?

[SPJ]

I think the brits have tougher laws.

they actually have very good policing force/people to enforce.

if you are found not feeding or treating your pets right,

your right to own them is taken away with fine.

--

[SPJ]

oops wrong response.

using dog as a weapon or drug trafficking.

absolutely not.

[Golden Spider]

But wouldn't this ordinance just be construed as a "hate-crime"? ~Sorry folks, but I've seen too many undesirables with pit bulls...

[Black Jack II]

The bs part of this is the line where it states that Animal Control would require them to get a permit if the "animal" could be considered dangerous.

Where do they make this bogus call on what dog is dangerous and what dog is not.

Otherwise I am fine with fellons not owning anything.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Isn't a Felon in Jail? And then once out an EX Felon?

Either way, if he's served his time and paid his debt let him do as he pleases.

[Becca]

oops wrong response.

using dog as a weapon or drug trafficking.

absolutely not.

But would making it illeagal for fellons to own a dog larger than 20 lbs be effective?

[Becca]

But wouldn't this ordinance just be construed as a "hate-crime"? ~Sorry folks, but I've seen too many undesirables with pit bulls...

I'm a pit-bull owner. I've actually been doubted that 2 of my 3 dogs are pits because they don't fit the stereo type. They get along with all comers, even strange dogs so long as you don't try to enter the house without a family member present. I have no problems with this type of legislation because it said not one thing about pit bulls. It said "dangerouse dogs". As in any dog that acts in a threatening way unprevoked. My dogs don't.


BUT.... The question was, do you think this type of legislation would be effective?

[Golden Spider]

Effective? ~Maybe...

What it would do, for the "thug" community, is further bragging rights for having a dog so potentially dangerous that it must be registered. Fight the power, as it were.
As far as pits are concerned I believe laws in California, for example, have already been passed to ban ownership, or curtail breeding. ~I don't recall, and am not inclined to research, I dislike all dogs quite severely.

Now if we could just keep rednecks from owning dogs, all would well with the world.

[Becca]

So you dis-like dogs and anyone you chose to lable a "red-neck?" Does liking dogs make a person a red neck in your book? What about people who don't like your favorite food?


But I think I agree on your point of what that type of legislation would do.

[Golden Spider]

Does liking dogs make a redneck? No, not necessarily. Though it does lean me in that direction. ~I'm really picky about food...
~My biggest personal gripe with *most* dog-owners, irregardless of legal status, is their lack of training in regards to the animals social skills. My sister has had three (3) Rottweilers shot by neighbors due to neighbor fear, and her irresponsibility in letting the behemoths run lose at all hours. I have a neighbor with a pit-bull who does the same.

Legislation against felons ownership, or registering their ownership of a dog, is a good place to start.

[Becca]

[~My biggest personal gripe with *most* dog-owners, irregardless of legal status, is their lack of training in regards to the animals social skills. My sister has had three (3) Rottweilers shot by neighbors due to neighbor fear, and her irresponsibility in letting the behemoths run lose at all hours. I have a neighbor with a pit-bull who does the same...

I'm one of the few dog owners I know that has no gripes against dog control laws. I don't let my dogs run loose and they are well behaved, so I have absolutely nothing to fear from them.

But banning all people from owning dogs does bug me. A part of my family will be ripped away and murdered for no reason but appeasing the ego of dog-haters.

Pit bull bans are useless. My town has a pit bull ban. The cops know I have 2. They bug me not at all about my dogs because they are never outside without a leash and a muzzle. The muzzles only started when the ban started. It isn't to protect people from being bit- It's to protect my pets from rabid humans who have no problem accusing an innocent dog of a fictisious attack "to protect humans". My dogs could not possibly have bitten anyone or another animal with metel cages over thier mouths.

[Black Jack II]

No, not necessarily. Though it does lean me in that direction.

Honest answer, though totally absurd.

[Golden Spider]

Honest answer, though totally absurd.

You ain't never bin'd to East Tinisee, hav'ya boy?

[Black Jack II]

Does liking dogs make a redneck? No, not necessarily. Though it does lean me in that direction. ~I'm really picky about food...

East Tinnisee as you call it is one part of the country, and one that is still not all Redneck, whatever that really means anyway.

Your paragraph states all dog owners, how Tinnisee funnels into all dog owners is beyond me.

But hell, its a free world, most parts anyway, I don't like cats for example.