Can someone with Knowledge about Home rule Chime in?

[mike6623]

Hello everyone. I live in Ohio (Newark, Ohio-From Steubenville) and own two "pit bull" type dogs as I have postd before.

There is no Federal law deeming this "type of dog" (I say type bc pit bull isn't a breed, american pit bull terrier is the only breed with that term, "pit bull" covers over 25 differnet breeds with similar looks) vicious. Also, there is no longer a state law deeming this "breed" vicious. I was told that the city has " Home Rule Doctrine" and that means that they can enact legislation as they see fit for the municipality. I thought that, they couldn't not make laws that directly conflict with federal/state law. So, if these dogs are not deemed vicious by the state or at the federal level, how can this be legal?

So, in the city I live in, this is what I have to go through.

1. 100k insurance
2. 6 foot fence
3. Muzzle while off my property
4. Microchip
5. Pay 40/yr for "vicous" dog license
6. Have the warden come to my house to inspect my enclosre and take pictures of my dog
7. Only allowed one per household


I mean, legally, would would my argument be here? These are council members, with no training or real knowledge regarding animal behavior, breed identification, etc yet they are making these laws. Telling me I can only own one dog, simply because of the way it looks, not acts.

 

[angelatc]

The lack of a law doesn't mean that local law conflicts with it.

If the state passed a law saying that pit bulls are illegal, then the local government couldn't pass a law saying that they were, indeed, legal. But there is no law saying that pit bulls aren't dangerous, so there's no law prohibiting the local municipality from making a law about pit bulls.

Yes it sucks. Pit bulls are the first on the list, but German Shepherds, Rotties, Dobermans and terriers aren't far behind.

 

[tod evans]

Hello everyone. I live in Ohio (Newark, Ohio-From Steubenville)

I have a feeling that addressing where you live is going to be far less traumatic than dealing with idiots.

 

[pcosmar]

Move.
There are still places with less stupid.

Dogs are not vicious,, people with authority are.

 

[mike6623]

The lack of a law doesn't mean that local law conflicts with it.

If the state passed a law saying that pit bulls are illegal, then the local government couldn't pass a law saying that they were, indeed, legal. But there is no law saying that pit bulls aren't dangerous, so there's no law prohibiting the local municipality from making a law about pit bulls.

Yes it sucks. Pit bulls are the first on the list, but German Shepherds, Rotties, Dobermans and terriers aren't far behind.

Thanbks! I am not sure if I understood you completely. Ohio HAD a law stating Owners of these dogs were required to own 100k insurance, fence, etc then they repealed it, but the city kep the law.

 

[Acala]

The lack of a law doesn't mean that local law conflicts with it.

If the state passed a law saying that pit bulls are illegal, then the local government couldn't pass a law saying that they were, indeed, legal. But there is no law saying that pit bulls aren't dangerous, so there's no law prohibiting the local municipality from making a law about pit bulls.

Yes it sucks. Pit bulls are the first on the list, but German Shepherds, Rotties, Dobermans and terriers aren't far behind.

Yup. There would need to be a state or federal law on the subject for there to be a conflict with a municipal law. No law, no conflict.

 

[mike6623]

Move.
There are still places with less stupid.

Dogs are not vicious,, people with authority are.

Moving isn't really an option at this point, but thanks.

 

[ds21089]

The lack of a law doesn't mean that local law conflicts with it.

If the state passed a law saying that pit bulls are illegal, then the local government couldn't pass a law saying that they were, indeed, legal. But there is no law saying that pit bulls aren't dangerous, so there's no law prohibiting the local municipality from making a law about pit bulls.

Yes it sucks. Pit bulls are the first on the list, but German Shepherds, Rotties, Dobermans and terriers aren't far behind.

They only want us with small dogs that pose no threat to them when the time comes to invade our households.

 

[angelatc]

Thanbks! I am not sure if I understood you completely. Ohio HAD a law stating Owners of these dogs were required to own 100k insurance, fence, etc then they repealed it, but the city kep the law.

Which is their right to do.

So, you running for town council or what?

 

[mike6623]

So, the city can pass any law they see fit just as long as there is no law against it? So they could make a law saying that you have to walk on one leg while in the presence of an officer. That isn't a federal law, but wouldn't they step in due to a direct violation of rights? Animals are property first, period.

 

[Acala]

So, the city can pass any law they see fit just as long as there is no law against it? So they could make a law saying that you have to walk on one leg while in the presence of an officer. That isn't a federal law, but wouldn't they step in due to a direct violation of rights? Animals are property first, period.

Well, this broader question is complicated. If there is no Federal or State constitutional or statutory prohibition on the city law, and there is no Federal or State law that supercedes the city law by "occupying the territory" of the law, and the City has authority to pass the law under its charter (assuming it is a charter city) or has plenary power under a "home rule" theory in that particular state, then yes, they can pass the law.

 

[mike6623]

Which is their right to do.

So, you running for town council or what?

No, I just do not see how that type of prpoerty rights violation is legal, not to mention that they are deeming any dog that "lools" a certain way "vicious"....at birth. So technically, they could say that certain basketball sneakers require insurance, a license, and only allow people to wear them with protective gear because so many people have broken their legs while wearing them? I realize that is a crazy comparison but it is similiar. I thought the Constitution supercedes all laws, I guess I was wrong. Not to mention that the people making these laws have zero knowledge about animal behavior or breed identification, they are going off of the GED weilding animal wardern and hearsay. That would like me making laws regarding roofing....i have no knowledge regarding roofing. So, again...they can pass ANY law that they want considering they have "home rule"?

 

[mike6623]

Well, this broader question is complicated. If there is no Federal or State constitutional or statutory prohibition on the city law, and there is no Federal or State law that supercedes the city law by "occupying the territory" of the law, and the City has authority to pass the law under its charter (assuming it is a charter city) or has plenary power under a "home rule" theory in that particular state, then yes, they can pass the law.

I am sure you know or can tell by my posts that I am not a Law student or whatever but if you could explain that, in a way that is more understandable, that would be great. I am not 12 but sometimes things you are not well versed in are easier to understand when you explain them as if you are talking to a 12 year old.

"and there is no Federal or State law that supercedes the city law by "occupying the territory" of the law"

What in the hell does that mean....im layman's terms?

 

[Acala]

I am sure you know or can tell by my posts that I am not a Law student or whatever but if you could explain that, in a way that is more understandable, that would be great. I am not 12 but sometimes things you are not well versed in are easier to understand when you explain them as if you are talking to a 12 year old.

"and there is no Federal or State law that supercedes the city law by "occupying the territory" of the law"

What in the hell does that mean....im layman's terms?

Roughly speaking, the law exists in a hierarchy. US Constitution>Federal statute>state constitution>state statute>city/county. If there is a direct conflict among two laws, the law of the higher authority wins.

There are several ways in which the laws can conflict. For example, a Federal law could say specifically "no state shall do X" and then any contrary state law would be void. This would be an express pre-emption because they came right out and said it. But there is a form of court-made pre-emption that arises if a statutory scheme is so broad and complete that it is deemed to have been intended to control the whole issue at ever level.

For example, suppose your city started licensing and regulating drugs and medical devices. A person could argue in court that the Federal scheme for licensing drugs and medical devices was so comprehensive it can be assumed that it was intended to pre-empt any lower jurisdiction from enacting laws in the same field even though the law does not expressly say so. And so the city law would be void.

Modern laws will often either expressly pre-empt lower level laws OR specifically leave open the opportunity for lower jurisdictions to make laws in the field so long as they don't conflict directly with the higher statute.

Make sense?

 

[mike6623]

Roughly speaking, the law exists in a hierarchy. US Constitution>Federal statute>state constitution>state statute>city/county. If there is a direct conflict among two laws, the law of the higher authority wins.

There are several ways in which the laws can conflict. For example, a Federal law could say specifically "no state shall do X" and then any contrary state law would be void. This would be an express pre-emption because they came right out and said it. But there is a form of court-made pre-emption that arises if a statutory scheme is so broad and complete that it is deemed to have been intended to control the whole issue at ever level.

For example, suppose your city started licensing and regulating drugs and medical devices. A person could argue in court that the Federal scheme for licensing drugs and medical devices was so comprehensive it can be assumed that it was intended to pre-empt any lower jurisdiction from enacting laws in the same field even though the law does not expressly say so. And so the city law would be void.

Modern laws will often either expressly pre-empt lower level laws OR specifically leave open the opportunity for lower jurisdictions to make laws in the field so long as they don't conflict directly with the higher statute.

Make sense?

Yes, and thanks! I was just confuses at first by the sheer ignorance of the law, which does nothing but give the animal warden the authority to deem any dog he sees fit as a "pit bull" if it is short haired, stocky with a squareish head haha. Also there was a time in which the supereme court deemed the law unconstitutional due to the vaugeness or something. But eventually they overturned it. Some states actually have laws banning breed specific legislation, unless it was in place prior, then the law is grandfatherd.

Now, I know that I have the right to remain silent, so I asume that goes along with the animal warden as well. This all started becasue I had been going to meetings (never mentioning that I even owned a dog) to talk about the law, facts, statistics, etc, and somone decided to tell the warden that I had been "talking about pit bulls". So, next thing you know, my neighbors were telling me that the warden was looking through my backyard fence, at my door looking in windows, etc. Now that is bullshit. There is and was no reasonable cause other than saying I was "talking" about a certain breed for anyone to question me.

When I originally got my dogs, I called the humane society and asked what I needed so I was protected. They gave me (at the time) the County Law (I didn't know there was a difference), which mirroed the state law. They said I had to have insurance and leashed. Then, come to find out, to get the "city" law, I had to go to some oh.us.blah blah blahj.....a site most average people do not know about. Then I found out I had to have all of the other things, the main thing being that I can only own ONE per household, and I had two. I Was given the option to either move, bring one to the pound, or give one away. I gave one to my mother for a month and took him back. I walk them seperately as they look identical. I have never had one of my dogs get loose, they have never bitten anyone nor do they bite, and they do not even bark yet they have the ability to deem my dog as "vicious"! The fact that these types of laws can be enacted, and kept on the books with no real drop in dog bites is fucking crazy.

 

[Acala]

Yes, and thanks! I was just confuses at first by the sheer ignorance of the law, which does nothing but give the animal warden the authority to deem any dog he sees fit as a "pit bull" if it is short haired, stocky with a squareish head haha. Also there was a time in which the supereme court deemed the law unconstitutional due to the vaugeness or something. But eventually they overturned it. Some states actually have laws banning breed specific legislation, unless it was in place prior, then the law is grandfatherd.

Now, I know that I have the right to remain silent, so I asume that goes along with the animal warden as well. This all started becasue I had been going to meetings (never mentioning that I even owned a dog) to talk about the law, facts, statistics, etc, and somone decided to tell the warden that I had been "talking about pit bulls". So, next thing you know, my neighbors were telling me that the warden was looking through my backyard fence, at my door looking in windows, etc. Now that is bullshit. There is and was no reasonable cause other than saying I was "talking" about a certain breed for anyone to question me.

When I originally got my dogs, I called the humane society and asked what I needed so I was protected. They gave me (at the time) the County Law (I didn't know there was a difference), which mirroed the state law. They said I had to have insurance and leashed. Then, come to find out, to get the "city" law, I had to go to some oh.us.blah blah blahj.....a site most average people do not know about. Then I found out I had to have all of the other things, the main thing being that I can only own ONE per household, and I had two. I Was given the option to either move, bring one to the pound, or give one away. I gave one to my mother for a month and took him back. I walk them seperately as they look identical. I have never had one of my dogs get loose, they have never bitten anyone nor do they bite, and they do not even bark yet they have the ability to deem my dog as "vicious"! The fact that these types of laws can be enacted, and kept on the books with no real drop in dog bites is fucking crazy.

It's more reactionary "feel-good" legislation, like gun control. What is on your property or under your control is YOUR business. There are probably pit bull groups online that can help

 

[thoughtomator]

If I were a pit bull enthusiast, I would see what measures could be reasonably taken to keep these dogs out of the hands of those who use them as weapons, who in turn create the public sentiment in favor of laws against them.

 

[mike6623]

Guess what? My dog of 5 1/2 years who has never once gotten loose, bitten or even barked at someone will have to be put down today. He is required by law to wear a muzzle at all times while off of my property, not matter what. Yesterday, it was hot, but not that hot and not humid either. My dog had a sever heat stroke and has been at the vet since. They say he is in bad shape, and I can try another high end vet service but it will be around 3k and no guarantee. I have walked this dog time and time again in the heat, sure he pants, but always was fine. I guess it got the better of him this time. I just hope that city law makers realize these laws are dumb, help no one, nad hurt responsible dog owners. Hell, by law I could have been cited for taking off his muzzle to try and cool him down. This is fucked.

 

[Kodaddy]

Just tell whomever asks that it is not a "pit bull"....it's a terrier! Maybe embellish a little and call it a "liberty terrier"....make the authorities responsible for the DNA testing to prove it is the kind of dog they think it is.(if that can even be done)

 

[mike6623]

Just tell whomever asks that it is not a "pit bull"....it's a terrier! Maybe embellish a little and call it a "liberty terrier"....make the authorities responsible for the DNA testing to prove it is the kind of dog they think it is.(if that can even be done)

That is my point exactly. The Animal Warden (who only needs a GED to do the job) has the authority to deem any dog a "pit bull". There were multiple people that had come into the council meetings, and they had AKC papers and pedigrees showing that they had 100% American bulldog, but the law is, if it looks like a "pit bull" then the warden can deem it one. That is how they get away with it. "Pit Bull" is not a breed. American Pit Bull Terrier is the only breed ith that term in its name. They consider a short, stocky, short haried dog with a squarish shaped head to be a "pit bull". It is a description, not a breed. The term "pit bull" actually covers about 25 different breeds. Check the link below. I presented this to Council at one point, they thought 95% of the dogs were "pit bulls" There is only one.

#16 is the APBT