Quote:
Originally Posted by porno jew
i will go with what the canadian courts tend to think.
Ms. Cochrane and the Attorney General of Ontario appealed different aspects of the decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.[26] In Cochrane v. Ontario (2008 ONCA 718), the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court's ruling:
It agreed with the lower court judge in finding that the ?overbreadth? claim failed because the legislature had acted on a ?reasonable apprehension of harm.?
It disagreed that the definition of pit bull in the Act was insufficiently precise and restored the original wording of "pit bull terrier" on the basis that, when read in the context of ?a more comprehensive definition,? the phrasing ?a pit bull terrier? was sufficiently precise.
It reversed the trial court and found that the government's ability to introduce a veterinarian's certificate certifying a dog was a pit bull would constitute proof only if the defendant failed to answer the claim: it was therefore a tactical burden, rather an evidentiary burden.[27]
On June 11, 2009 the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear further appeal of the case, thereby upholding the Ontario ban on pit bulls.[26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed-s...gal_Challenges |
Oh right I see courts are the experts in animals not the people that spend their entire careers working with and caring for. That clearly makes more sense and you're winning me over now.
According to Colorado?s state laws, no municipality may enact a law that is restrictive based on breed alone.
cently 4 BSLs were stopped due to public outcry or cost ineffectiveness in Colorado, Massachusetts and Oklahoma. However, California has recently repealed a ban on BSLs, allowing cities to adopt ordinances banning or restricting certain breeds.
It appears there's some confusion amongst law makers and they don't even all agree on your point. Probably just best to go with the people that interact with animals on a full time basis. Errr wait, that isn't you is it?